Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Lilaben Kanjibhai Padhiyar on 10 February, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6065 of 2019
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 124 of 2021
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 6065 of 2019
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 to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
LILABEN KANJIBHAI PADHIYAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VYOMA K JHAVERI(6386) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 7
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Defendant(s) No. 7
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 8
MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Defendant(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6
MR.DEVENDRA H PANDYA(6462) for the Defendant(s) No. 7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Page 1 of 20
Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 12:30:02 IST 2022
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
Date : 10/02/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
judgment and award dated 15.02.2018, passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Rajkot at Dhoraji, in
Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 73 of 2012, the ST
Corporation has preferred this appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act").
2. The following facts emerge from the record of
the appeal -
2.1 That the accident took place on 15.06.2011 at
about 11.30 AM near Royal Tiles Factory on Jamnagar-
Rajkot Highway, near Paddhari village. It is the
case of the original claimants that deceased
Kanjibhai Bhagvanbhai Padhiyar, was travelling in
motor car bearing registration no. GJ-01-KB-7586 and
when he reached at the place of occurrence, the
driver of the ST bus bearing registration no. GJ-18Y-
1859, which was driven in full speed and in negligent
manner, dashed with the motorcar because of which the
deceased sustained serious injuries and was admitted
to the hospital and ultimately, he died on
02.10.2011. An FIR was lodged with Padadhari Police
Station at exhibit 51 and the present claim petition
was filed under Section 166 of the Act and claimed
compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/-.
2.2 One of the claimant was examined at exhibit 33
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
and the claimants relied upon plethora of documentary
evidence such as -
1. FIR at exhibit 51
2. Panchnama of scheme of occurrence at exhibit 52
3. Charge-sheet at exhibit 53
4. Inquest panchnama at exhibit 54
5. R.C. Book of Motor car No. GJ-01-KB-7586 at
exhibit 55
6. Injury Certificate issued by Civil Hospital,
Rajkot at exhibit 58
7. Injury Certificates issued by Gokul Hospital,
Rajkot at exhibits 59 and 60
8. Death Certificate issued by Gokul Hospital at
exhibit 61
9. Medical Bills of Rs.3,71,900/- of Gokul Hospital
at exhibit 62
10. Death panchnama with reports at exhibit 38
11. Certificate issued by Gokul Hospital, Rajkot at
exhibit 39
12. PM Report of deceased at exhibit 40
13. Discharge card of Gokul Hospital at exhibit 63
14. Discharge card of Sal Hospital at exhibit 64
15. Medical Bills at exhibit 65
16. Prescription statement at exhibit 66
17. Statement of medical reports at exhibit 67
The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence in
the form of FIR at 51 and panchnama of the scene of
occurrence at exhibit 52 and considering that even
the charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the
motor car, came to the conclusion that the driver of
the ST Bus was negligent to the extent of 80% whereas
the driver of the motorcar was negligent to the
extent of 20%.
2.3 It was the case of the claimants that deceased
was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month by
doing agriculture work. The Tribunal, ultimately
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
determined the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/-
per month and following the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680,
awarded 10% prospective income as the deceased was
aged 52 years old on the date of the accident and
after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses,
applying multiplier of 11, awarded a sum of Rs.
3,38,800/- as compensation under the head of loss of
dependency. Considering the evidence of medical
bills, and more particularly, exhibits 62 and 65, as
well as the Statement of Dr.Tejas Laxmanbhai Karmata
at exhibit 45 and Dr. Pravinbhai Dayabhai Vala at
exhibit 37, awarded a sum of Rs.20,27,500/- as
medical expenses. Over and above the same, also
granted compensation of Rs. 70,000/- under different
conventional heads including funeral expenses and
thus, while partly allowing the claim petition,
awarded a sum of Rs.24,36,300/- with 9% interest from
the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realisation.
2.4 The Tribunal also examined the issue of driving
license of the driver of the motor car. Relying upon
the charge-sheet at exhibit 53, the Tribunal accepted
that the driver of the motor car was not having
driving license, however, considering the fact that
the deceased was the third party to the opponent, the
insurance company was liable to pay and then recover
from the owner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
ST Corporation has preferred the present appeal and
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
the original claimants have filed the cross-objection
for enhancement.
3. Heard Ms.Vyoma Jhaveri, learned advocate for the
appellant ST Corporation, Mr. Tushar L. Sheth,
learned advocate for the original claimants, Mr.
Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate for the insurance
company of the car and Mr.Devendra Pandya, learned
advocate for the owner of the motorcar, respondent
no.7.
4. Ms.Vyoma Jhaveri, learned advocate appearing for
the appellant ST Corporation contended that the
Tribunal has committed error in granting medical
expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,27,500/- without
appreciating the same. Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri also
contended that the claimants have not examined any of
the doctors who have treated the deceased and thus,
without there being any proof or evidence, such a
huge amount has been granted as medical expenses.
Ms. Jhaveri further contended that the Tribunal has
also committed an error in coming to the conclusion
that the driver of the ST Bus was negligent to the
extent of 80%. Referring to the FIR at Exhibit 51
and panchnama at exhibit 54 and charge-sheet at
exhibit 53, Ms. Jhaveri contended that the Tribunal
has erred in appreciating the fact as to how the
accident has occurred. Ms. Jhaveri contended that
the FIR was given by the conductor of the bus and the
charge-sheet is also filed against the driver of the
motor car, which prima facie shows that the driver of
the motor car was more negligent than the driver of
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
the ST Bus. Ms. Jhaveri further contended that the
Tribunal has in absence of any evidence, has rightly
considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/-.
Ms. Jhaveri contended that the other claimants are
major and are not dependent on the deceased and
hence, the Tribunal has rightly come to the
conclusion that the applicants no.2 and 5 are not
entitled to any amount of compensation. Ms. Jhaveri
further contended that as the claimants were only two
in number, who were dependents on the deceased, the
Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses. Ms. Jhaveri contended that thus the appeal
filed by the ST Corporation be allowed and the Cross-
Objections filed by the claimants being meritless,
deserves to be dismissed.
5. Per contra, Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned
advocate for the original claimants has opposed the
appeal. Referring to the medical bills at exhibits
62 and 65 as well as the statement given by two
Doctors at 45 and exhibit 37, it was contended by
Mr. Tushar Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the
original claimants that the Tribunal has correctly
appreciated the evidence on record and granted
medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,27,500/-.
According to Mr. Sheth, the original claimants have
proved the same, i.e., the appellant has not raised
any objection to the same. Referring to the FIR at
exhibit 51 and panchnama at exhibit 52, Mr. Sheth
contended that it has come on record that four lane
work was going on and the bus was being driven at
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
such a speed that it dashed with the motor car. Mr.
Sheth invited attention to the observations made by
the Tribunal where the part of the bus which was
damaged and it was contended by Mr. Sheth that such
damage on the left side would not be possible if the
car was trying to overtake as portrayed by the
appellant. Mr. Sheth submitted that thus, the aspect
of negligence as decided by the Tribunal is on
correct interpretation of the evidence on record and
no interference is called for. Mr. Sheth contended
that the deceased was 52 years old on the date of the
accident and he passed away on 02.10.2011, i.e.,
after almost 3 1/2 months. Mr. Sheth further
contended that the Tribunal has as such committed an
error in determining the income of the deceased at
Rs.3,500/- per month. According to Mr. Sheth, as the
deceased was an agriculturist and having large chunk
of land, therefore, the appropriate income would be
Rs.10,000/- per month. Relying upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of N. Jayasree and Ors.
Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 967, it was contended
that every legal representative who suffers on
account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle
accident should have a remedy for realization of
compensation. Mr. Sheth relying upon the said
judgment contended that thus, the dependents were
more in number and deduction of 1/3rd towards
personal expenses by the Tribunal is error apparent.
According to Mr. Sheth, such deduction should be
1/4th. Mr. Sheth further pointed out that the
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
injuries were so severe that the deceased had to
undergo extensive treatment at Gokul Hospital, Rajkot
and SAL Hospital in Ahmedabad and ultimately,
succumbed to the injuries on 02.10.2011, however the
Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the
head of pain, shock and suffering. To buttress his
argument, Mr. Sheth has relied upon the judgment of
the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of
Legal heirs of deceased Shaileshbhai Baldevbhai Patel
every legal representative who suffers on account of
the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident
should have a remedy for realization of compensation.
Mr. Sheth relying upon the said judgment contended
that thus, the dependents were more in number and
deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses as
deducted by the Tribunal is error apparent.
According to Mr. Sheth, such deduction should be
1/4th. Mr. Sheth further pointed out that injuries
were so severe that the deceased had to undergo
extensive treatment at Gokul Hospital, Rajkot and SAL
Hospital at Ahmedabad and ultimately, succumbed to
the injuries on 02.10.2011. However, the Tribunal
has not granted any compensation under the head of
pain, shock and suffering. To buttress his argument,
Mr. Tushar Sheth has relied upon the judgment of the
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Legal
heirs of deceased Shaileshbhai Baldevbhai Patel Vs.
Parmar Pravinsinh Chedusin reported in 2019 ACJ 704.
Mr. Sheth also contended that the original claimant
no.6 was only aged 18 years and would therefore be
entitled to consortium, relying upon the judgment of
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
the coordinate bench in First Appeal No. 3508 of 2021
dated 06.12.2021. Mr. Sheth also relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias
Chuhru Ram and Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and
contended that the daughter aged 18 years was
dependent on deceased and therefore, would be
entitled to parental consortium. On the aforesaid
grounds, it was contended by Mr. Sheth that the
appeal filed by the ST Corporation being meritless,
deserves to be dismissed whereas the cross-objection
deserves to be allowed.
6. Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned counsel appearing for
the insurance company submitted that the insurance
company of the motor car has not preferred any appeal
and contended that this Court may pass appropriate
order.
7. Mr. Devendra Pandya, learned counsel also
supported the impugned judgment and award.
8. No other or further submissions, grounds or
contentions have been raised by the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties.
9. We have perused the original record and
proceedings.
10. It is an admitted position that the accident
took place on 15.06.2011 and the deceased died on
02.10.2011, i.e., after almost 3 1/2 months. The
final bill at exhibit 62 is the bill issued by Gokul
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
Hospital situated at Rajkot, amounting to Rs.
3,71,900/-. The discharge summary at exhibit 63
reads thus -
Discharge Summary
Diagnosis : RTA with HI with SAH with IVH + H'gic Contustion +
oedema + Lt
Humerous # with Lt wrist # with Lt tibia and
femeur # with Lt
lower zone pneumonia with septichemia with IHD
with inflammatory bowel disease
? cronh's
?? koch's
Case History: C/O Vehicular Accident dune b/w Bus & Maruti
wagenr car on 15/06/2011 Jamnagar road near
Targhadia.
Take primary treatment at Civil Hospital Rajkot
then refer to Naman Hospital Rajkot then for
further treatment admitted hear at 6:00PM on
15/06/2011.
H/O Unconsciousness since injury
No H/O Vomiting
No H/O Convulsions
H/O oral Bleeding
Investigation: NCCT SCAN BRAIN (15/06/2011)
Haemorrhagic contusion noted in right temporal and
right basal ganglia.
Diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage noted in right
temporo-parietal region and left parietal region.
Fracture noted in left frontal bone extends to
frontal sinus.
Fracture noted in posterolateral wall of left
maxilla.
MSCT SCAN BRAIN (17/06/2011)
As compared to previous ct scan study on dated
15/06/2011.
There is mild decrease in subarachnoid
haemorrhage. There is appearance of
intraventricular haemorrhage.
Rest of findings remain unchanged.
MSCT SCAN BRAIN (02/07/2011)
There is appearance of left sided subdural
hygroma. There is resolution of right sided
extraaxial and
left sided intraventricular haemorrhage. There is
decrease in subarachnoid haemorrhage.
Rest of findings remain unchanged.
Treatment
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
given : Antibiotic
Antiemetic
Antacid
IV Fluid
Supportive
Condition on
Discharge : REFER TO OTHER HOSPITAL
Advice/Instructions : Lt wrist operative should be done after fully
stabilised.
All reports are with Patient:
The record indicates that the deceased was thereafter
admitted to SAL Hospital at Ahmedabad. The Exhibit
65, which is an exhibited document recites the bills
for the medicines and pathology test, which were
procured by the original claimants amounting to Rs.
16,55,162.65. The Patient Settlement Receipt issued
by SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad on 10.09.2011 amounts to
Rs. 3,78,240/-, which is accompanied by final bills,
which is also on record. In addition to that, there
is another additional receipt dated 10.09.2011 of
Shree Gokul Critical Care Unit and Hospital for an
amount of Rs. 11,000/-. Upon appreciation of the
evidence on record and the statement at exhibit 64,
on the contrary indicates that because of financial
crunch, the deceased had to be discharged as per the
wish of the relatives against medical advise and
transfer the patient, i.e. deceased to Surendranagar
due to financial constraint. All these leads to
believe that the claimants had to incur such a huge
amount of almost Rs.20 lakhs and more to save the
life of the deceased. However, unfortunately, the
claimants have failed. In light of the aforesaid
clinching evidence on record, the contention raised
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
by Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri, learned advocate for the ST
Corporation that the medical bills of Rs. 20,27,500/-
is excessive, is meritless. Only because the Doctors
are not examined to prove each and every bill is of
no avail to the appellant Corporation. On the
contrary, we find that Dr.Tejas Laxmanbhai Karmata
has been examined at exhibit 45, who had treated the
deceased at Gokul Hospital at Rajkot. In totality of
these facts therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the medical expenses and granted Rs.
20,27,500/-.
11. Upon examining the manner in which the accident
has occurred by referring to FIR at 51 and panchnama
of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 52, it is an
admitted position that the appellant has not examined
either the conductor or driver of the ST bus. It
bornes out from the record that four-lane work was
going on and as rightly observed by the Tribunal, in
such an eventuality, overtaking was not possible at
all. Merely because such contention is taken in
written submissions, the same cannot be a
substitution for the proof. Ms. Jhaveri tried to
canvass that in the written statement, the statement
of the driver is mentioned, however, the same is of
no avail. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the
manner in which the accident has occurred and
considering the portion of the ST Bus which is
damaged, i.e., on the left hand side, it cannot be
believed that the car tried to overtake. The
Tribunal on the contrary has accepted the factum that
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
the driver of the motor car did not have a valid
license and has therefore directed the insurance
company to pay first and then recover, which is not
challenged by the insurance company of the motor car.
However, upon re-appreciating the evidence on record,
more particularly the FIR at 51 and panchnama of the
scene of occurrence at exhibit 52, the Tribunal has
rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the
ST bus was negligent to the extent of 80% and the
driver of the motor car, who has been rightly treated
as third party was negligent to the extent of 20% and
no interference is called for on the said aspect.
12. Considering the grounds raised in the cross-
objections as well as on perusal of the record as
well as the deposition of the claimant no.5 at
exhibit 33, it is not in dispute that the deceased
was an agriculturist. Even considering the date on
which the accident has occurred, i.e, 15.06.2011, the
income as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,500/- is
less. In facts of this case and considering the oral
deposition of the claimants, the income of the
deceased can safely be assessed at Rs.6,000/- per
month as it can be easily presumed from the vocation
of agriculture, the deceased who was maintaining
family of 6 persons would earn at least Rs.200/- per
day.
13. The exhibit 59 on record is the injury
certificate issued by Gokul Superspeciality Hospital,
which reads as under -
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
Injury Certificate
This is to to certify that MR.KANJIBHA]
BHAGVANJIBHAI PADHIYAR, 55yrs/M was admitted on 11
and Discharged Against Medical Advice (DAMA) on
20/08/11. He was primarily at Civil Hospital, Rajkot
then Naman Hospital by Dr. Nimish Trivedi (Mch.
Neuro) Rajkot. He had following injuries:
H/O: Alleged H/O Vehicular Accident Car dashed with
Bus on 15/06/2011 at about 11:00 am, Unconsciousness
since injury, oral bleeding.
O/E- Unconscious, pupil semi dilated Rt. > Lt., Lt
moves > Rt. limbs
L/O: # humorous Lt, # collie's comminuted Lt.
CT BRAIN (15/06/2011): Haemorrhagic contusion noted
in right temporal and right basal glia. Diffuse
subarachnoid haemorrhage noted in right temporo-
parietal region and left parietal region. Fracture
noted in left frontal bone extends to frontal sinus.
Fracture noted in posterolateral wall of left
maxilla.
CTBRAIN (17/06/2011): As compared to previous ct
scan study on dated 15/06/2011. There is mild
decrease in subarachnoid haemorrhage. There is
appearance of intra ventricular haemorrhage. Rest of
findings remain unchanged.
MSCT SCAN BRAIN (02/07/2011): There is appearance of
left sided subdural hygroma. There is resolution of
right sided extra axial and left sided intra
ventricular haemorrhage. There is decrease in
subarachnoid haemorrhage. Rest of findings remain
unchanged.
PROCEDURE : (1) 20/06/2011 - T'stomy done by Dr.
Tejas Karmata.
(2) Sigmoidoscopy done by Dr. Praful Kamani at
Wockhardt Hospital
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
It is an admitted position that the deceased
survived till 02.10.2011, i.e., almost for 3 1/2
months. The documents on record are eloquent enough
to justify the contention raised by Mr. Sheth,
learned advocate for the original claimants to the
effect that the claimants are entitled to appropriate
compensation under the head of pain, shock and
suffering. With the above injuries, it goes without
saying that deceased has undergone much pain and
agony. Relying upon the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Legal heirs of
deceased Shaileshbhai Baldevbhai Patel(supra),
considering the period for which the deceased
remained in hospital after the accident and having
taken medical treatment for approximately 3 1/2
months, the original claimants shall also be entitled
to at least Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and
suffering.
14. The record indicates that the original claim
petition was preferred by the deceased himself
through his son Kiritbhai Kanjibhai Padhiyar on
28.09.2011, i.e., only 2-3 days before the sad demise
and therefore, the application came to be amended
whereby wife, four major sons and major daughter were
substituted as party to the claim petition and the
claim was also enhanced to Rs.40,00,000/-. At this
juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the
oral deposition of one of the claimant Bahadurbhai
Kanjibhai Padhiyar at exhibit 33. In his cross-
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
examination, it has come on record that his father,
i.e., the deceased used to earn and he and his three
brothers used to help his father in the agriculture
and were not doing any other work. Thus, the
deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and
therefore, as held by the Apex Court in the case of
N. Jayasree (supra), wherein, it has been observed
thus -
"16. In our view, the term 'legal
representative' should be given a wider
interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of
MV Act and it should not be confined only to
mean the spouse, parents and children of the
deceased. As noticed above, MV Act is a
benevolent legislation enacted for the object of
providing monetary relief to the victims or
their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for
a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the
real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil
its legislative intent. We are also of the view
that in order to maintain a claim petition, it
is sufficient for the claimant to establish his
loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act
makes it clear that every legal representative
who suffers on account of the death of a person
in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy
for realization of compensation.
17. It is settled that percentage of deduction
for personal expenses cannot be governed by a
rigid rule or formula of universal application.
It also does not depend upon the basis of
relationship of the claimant with the deceased.
In some cases, the father may have his own
income and thus will not be considered as
dependent. Sometimes, brothers and sisters will
not be considered as dependents because they may
either be independent or earning or married or
be dependent on the father. The percentage of
deduction for personal expenditure, thus,
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
18. In the instant case, the question for
consideration is whether the fourth appellant
would fall under the expression 'legal
representative' for the purpose of claiming
compensation. In Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai
and Anr.3 this Court while considering the
entitlement of the brother of a deceased who
died in a motor vehicle accident to maintain a
claim petition under the provisions of the MV
Act, held as under:
"13. We feel that the view taken by the
Gujarat High Court is in consonance with
the principles of justice, equity and good
conscience having regard to the conditions
of the Indian society. Every legal
representative who suffers on account of
the death of a person due to a motor
vehicle accident should have a remedy for
realisation of compensation and that is
provided by Sections 110A to 110F of the
Act. These provisions are in consonance
with the principles of law of torts that
every injury must have a remedy. It is for
the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to
determine the compensation which appears to
it to be just as provided in Section 110B
of the Act and to specify the person or
persons to whom compensation shall be paid.
The determination of the compensation
payable and its apportionment as required
by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the
legal representatives for whose benefit an
application may be filed under Section 110A
of the Act have to be done in accordance
with well-known principles of 33 (1987) 3
SCC 234 law. We should remember that in an
Indian family brothers, sisters and
brothers' children and sometimes foster
children live together and they are
dependent upon the breadwinner of the
family and if the bread-winner is killed on
account of a motor vehicle accident, there
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
is no justification to deny them
compensation relying upon the provisions of
the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we
have already held has been substantially
modified by the provisions contained in the
Act in relation to cases arising out of
motor vehicles accidents. We express our
approval of the decision in Megjibhai
Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhagujri 4
and hold that the brother of a person who
dies in a motor vehicle accident is
entitled to maintain a petition under
Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal
representative of the deceased."
In case on hand also, as observed hereinabove, all
the three major sons were dependent on the income of
the deceased and therefore would fall in the category
of legal heirs. Having come to the aforesaid
conclusion therefore, the dependents were six in
number and therefore, the deduction would be 1/4th
and not 1/3rd towards personal expenses.
15. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited
(supra) as well as Pranay Sethi (supra), only wife
of the deceased would be entitled to consortium as
all other legal heirs are major.
16. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion
therefore, the original claimants would be entitled
to compensation under the head of Loss of dependency
as under -
Rs.6000/- (income) + Rs. 600/- (10% prospective
income as the deceased was 55 years old =
Rs.6,600/- - Rs.1650/- (1/4th deduction towards
personal expenses) = Rs. 4,950/- X 12 X 11
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
(multiplier) = Rs.6,53,400/- (Loss of
Dependency)
Thus, the original claimants would be entitled
to compensation as under -
Future Loss of Income - Rs. 6,53,400/-
Medical expenses - Rs.20,27,500/-
Consortium - Rs. 40,000/-
Pain, shock and suffering - Rs. 1,00,000/-
Love and affection - Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
--------------
Total compensation Rs.28,50,900/-
==============
17. Thus, the original claimants would be entitled
to total compensation of Rs.28,50,900/-. As the
Tribunal has awarded Rs. 24,36,300/-, the original
claimants would be entitled to additional
compensation of Rs. 4,14,600/-. The appeal filed by
the ST Corporation stands dismissed and the cross-
objection filed by the original claimants is allowed
to the aforesaid extent. The impugned judgment and
award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The
Respondents shall deposit the additional amount in
the ratio as determined by the Tribunal with interest
at the rate of 6% from the date of the claim petition
till its realisation. 60% of the award as modified
by this Court shall be disbursed in favour of the
claimant no.1, i.e., the wife of the deceased and 40%
be disbursed equally amongst other legal
representatives. The claimants shall provide the
bank details to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall
C/FA/6065/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
make disbursement in favour of the legal
representatives, i.e., the original claimants as
provided in this judgment and order by RTGS.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
