Gujarat High Court
Saluji Shakaraji Ninama vs Dilavarkhan Najarkhan Shekh on 1 February, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/787/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 787 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copyNo
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SALUJI SHAKARAJI NINAMA & 6 other(s)
Versus
DILAVARKHAN NAJARKHAN SHEKH & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KSHITIJ AMIN, ADVOCATE for
MR MITESH R AMIN(2876) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MR SAURABH G AMIN(2168) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/02/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants for
enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Himmatnagar,
C/FA/787/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2022
Sabarkantha dated 09.09.2005 in MACP No. 1394 of 1999,
whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of
the original claimants and awarded Rs. 1,02,000- with simple
interest at the rate of 9% till 31.12.2000 and further interest at
the rate of 6% from 01.01.2001.
2. The brief facts of the present case are as under.
2.1. On 18.06.1999 the deceased after attending the
marriage of son of one Maknaji Ramji at village-Vandhol
returning from Mujalia road to her village Padela. A truck
bearing registration No. GJ-9T-5857 came with full and
excessive speed dashed with the deceased. As a result of
which, the deceased sustained serious injuries and ultimately
succumbed to the death on 19.06.1999.
3. Learned advocate for the appellants - original claimants
has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any
amount under the head of loss of expectation of life. It is
submitted that the Tribunal should have awarded lump sum
amount towards the expenditures incurred by the parents for
the treatment. It is also contended that the Tribunal has
committed an error by awarding the amount under the head
of loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses. Learned
advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants -
original claimants are entitled to receive some higher
compensation and submitted that the amount of compensation
may kindly be enhanced.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh Amin, learned advocate
appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently
C/FA/787/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2022
objected the enhancement of the amount and submitted that
the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and no
interference is required to be called for.
5. I have heard Mr. Kshitij Amin, learned advocate for the
appellants - original claimants and Mr. Saurabh Amin, learned
advocate for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company through
the Video Conference. Though other respondents are served,
none appears on their behalf.
6. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned advocates for both the parties and considering the fact
that only issue involved in the present appeal is about the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or
not.
7. Considering the facts of the present appeal and the
evidence adduced by both the parties namely documentary
evidence and oral evidence led by the learned advocates of
the parties and considering the recent judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (i) Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 1211
(ii) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, (iii) Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others,
(2018) 18 SCC 130 and (iv) United India Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, AIR
2020 SC 620, I am of the view that the present appeal requires
to be allowed and the amount of compensation is required to
be substituted awarding Rs. 1,06,000/- in addition to the
amount which is awarded by the Tribunal.
C/FA/787/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2022
8. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following
order :
8.1 The present appeal is partly allowed.
8.2 The impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha
dated 09.09.2005 in MACP No. 1394 of 1999 is hereby
modified and in addition to what has been awarded by the
Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/ as additional amount with
interest at the rate of 6%. per annum is awarded, which shall
be from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit
whichever is earlier.
8.3 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced
amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 6% as
early as possible within an outer limit of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8.4 The said amount is disbursed by issuing account payee
cheque in favour of the present appellants - original claimants
after due verification.
8.5 Decree be drawn accordingly.
Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith. Pending Civil Applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SALIM/
