Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Vaishali Hiteshbhai Patel on 8 February, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/4438/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4438 of 2009
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4439 of 2009
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 82 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4439 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
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 questionNo
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.THRO'IT'S AUTHORISE
SIGNA
Versus
VAISHALI HITESHBHAI PATEL & 6 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 6,7
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI(2133) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Page 1 of 5
Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 12:16:46 IST 2022
C/FA/4438/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2022
Date : 08/02/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
1. The present appeals are preferred by the Insurance
Company challenging the impugned common judgment and
award dated 17.03.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in MACP Nos. 702 and 703 of 2004.
2. The brief facts of the present case are as under:
2.1 The accident had occurred on 20.11.2004 at about 11:30
pm. on Bharuch - Dahej by-pass road in the middle of over
bridge of ABC Chokadi and Nandevar, opposite to Ami Weigh
bridge, Bholav within the jurisdiction of Bharuch City 'A"
Division Police Station, Bharuch. The deceased - Hiteshbhai
and Natvarsinh were serving in Video con Company and they
were returning from service towards Shuklatirth on a
motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-16-Q-6801, which was
driven by the deceased- Hiteshbhai and Natversinh was the
pillion rider. From the opposite side, a Luxury bus bearing
registration No. GJ-6-X-9119 was coming in rash and negligent
and in excessive speed dashed with the motorcycle. As as
result of which, Hiteshbhai was died on the spot and
Natwarsinh was died while he was being taken to Bharuch Civil
Hospital. The claim petitions were filed before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharuch. The Tribunal has awarded
the amount of compensation of Rs. 17,20,000/- each to the
original claimants.
3. We have heard Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for
C/FA/4438/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2022
the appellant- Insurance Company and Mr. Kashyap Joshi,
learned advocate for the original claimants. Though other
respondents were served, they have been deleted.
4. The appellant - Insurance Company has mainly
challenged the impugned judgment and award on a ground
that the amount received by the original claimants under the
head of master insurance policy i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- from the
employee should deducted by determining the amount of
compensation and on that very limited ground, the present
appeal is filed. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sabastiani Lakra and others Vs. National Insurance Company
Ltd. And another reported in AIR 2020 SC 147, and the amount
of Rs. 3,00,000/- received by the original claimant from the
Insurance Company. Though the other contentions were raised
in the memo of appeal and they are not pressed by the
appellant - Insurance Company.
5. The Cross Objections are filed by the claimants in First
Appeal No. 4439 of 2009 praying enhancement of the amount
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that
the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased in
its true and prospective spirit nor the Tribunal has considered
the multiplier and consortium.
6. No other and further submissions, contentions or grounds
have been raised by the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
7. So far as the said contention raised by the learned
C/FA/4438/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2022
advocate for the appellant is concerned, we are of the opinion
that the said contention is required to be negatived as the said
amount is not to be deducted from the amount of
compensation awarded in vehicular accident, wherein the
deceased was died. It is immediate relief to the family of the
deceased that the ground of master insurance policy to be
paid and it is covered and the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal, while awarding the amount of
compensation, has considered the income of the deceased and
though the effective submission made on behalf of the
appellant - Insurance Policy is not to be considered and the
amount awarded by the Tribunal, is not to be interfered with.
In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC
680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu
Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the
amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
adequate and therefore no interference is required to be called
for.
8. In view of above, the following order is passed.
8.1 The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is hereby
dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is confirmed.
8.2 The Cross Objection filed by the claimants in First Appeal
No. 4439 of 2009 is also be dismissed. The amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the untimely death
C/FA/4438/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2022
of the deceased is just and adequate. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Salim/
