Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Heirs Of Dharmendrabhai Mehta on 11 January, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/3268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3268 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
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 ?
================================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
HEIRS OF DHARMENDRABHAI MEHTA & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA(3709) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.3,1.4,1.5
RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N)(9) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 11/01/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance
Company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
29.08.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.)
C/FA/3268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2022
Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.A.C.P.
No. 268 of 1998.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 28.02.1998 at
about 8.00 p.m., deceased Hitesh Dharmendrabhai Mehta, while
returning home on his Luna Moped bearing Registration No.GJ-
10-B-8800 on correct side of the road and in moderate speed, at
that time, near Bombay Dying Mill, Ranjit Road, opponent no.1 -
respondent no.2 herein came driving Bajaj Rickshaw bearing
Registration No.GTB-8732 in excessive speed and in rash and
negligent manner, dashed with the deceased, as a result of
which, he sustained serious injury and succumbed to the injury.
Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased Hitesh Dharmendrabhai
Mehta has filed the aforesaid claim petition, whereby the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded
compensation of Rs.4,76,600/- along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization and proportionate cost of the petition.
3. Heard Mr.Sunil Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant - Insurance Company and Mr.Raxit Dholakia, learned
C/FA/3268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2022
counsel appearing for the respondents - original claimants
through video conference.
4. Mr.Sunil Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant - Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal
has erred in awarding compensation of Rs.4,76,600/-. He has
submitted that the Tribunal has erred by considering the income
of the deceased at Rs.3620/- per month, however, looking to the
various pay slips, it is not evident that the deceased was earning
Rs.3620/- per month and no proof was produced regarding his
future prospects. He has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in
calculating Rs.24,000/- as yearly dependency amount, but as
such, it would be Rs.21,600/-, if at all prospective income is
considered by the Tribunal. He has submitted that there is no
cogent and proper evidence led by the claimants about the
income of the deceased and even the multiplier applied by the
Tribunal is on higher side and, therefore, interference is required
to be called for.
5. Mr.Raxit Dholakia, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents - original claimants has supported the impugned
C/FA/3268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2022
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that
the Tribunal has not committed error in awarding compensation.
He has submitted that so far as the income of the deceased is
concerned, the claimants have produced the cogent and proper
evidence about the income of the deceased and even the
multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and proper. He has
submitted that the appeal may be dismissed and the impugned
judgment and award may be confirmed.
6. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties
and considered the record and proceedings of the case, it clearly
transpires that the impugned judgment and award is just and
proper and, therefore, I am in complete agreement with the
reasoning and findings arrived at by the Tribunal while passing
the impugned award.
7. It is pertinent to note that the original claimants have not
preferred any cross objection / cross appeal for enhancement of
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and,
therefore, no further discussion is required to be made on this
C/FA/3268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2022
aspect. It is also relevant to note here that respondent no.2 -
Minakshiben Dharmendrabhai Mehta, mother of the deceased
died during the pendency of the present appeal and, therefore,
the amount of compensation invested in the name of respondent
no.2 - Minakshiben Dharmendrabhai Mehta is required to be
disbursed in favour of respondent no.1 - Dharmendrabhai
Jagannath Mehta.
8. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. The
amount of compensation which is deposited before the Tribunal
and invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of respondent no.2 -
Minakshiben Dharmendrabhai Mehta is, now, to be disbursed in
favour of respondent no.1 - Dharmendrabhai Jagannath Mehta.
The rest of the award shall remain unaltered. Record and
proceedings of the case be sent back to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
