Gujarat High Court
Shrimati Kumud Bhalchandra ... vs Tiloksinh Dudhsinh Ravat C/O ... on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/FA/3802/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3802 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
SHRIMATI KUMUD BHALCHANDRA DAHADE & 1 other(s)
Versus
TILOKSINH DUDHSINH RAVAT C/O KATARIA TRANPORT COMPANY & 4
other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MR PRAJAPATI(1532) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR SHASHIKANT S GADE(1706) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 17/01/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
C/FA/3802/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
judgment and award dated 11.9.2007 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux),
Vadodara in MACP no.647/99, the appellant-
original claimant has preferred this appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. Following facts emerge from the record of the
appeal:-
2.1 That the accident occurred on 3.9.1996 on
Himmatnagar-Prantij Highway. It is the case of
the appellant-original claimant that the
deceased who was working in postal department
was on training at Vadodara. It is the case of
the appellant-original claimant that on
31.8.1996, the deceased went for a tour to
Abu-Ambaji and were traveling in a Metador on
the date of the accident while coming back.
Record indicates that when the Metador reached
the scene of occurrence, a truck bearing
registration no. GJ-1 U-4561 was parked in a
stationary position without any signal or
indication on the middle of the road. As the
driver of the Metador could not identify the
stationary truck due to darkness, the Metador
dashed from behind with the truck. The
deceased sustained serious injuries and
succumbed to the same. The present claim
C/FA/3802/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022
petition was filed under Section 166 of the
Act by the original claimant who happens to be
the mother and claimed compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-.
2.2 It was the case of the original claimant
before the Tribunal that the deceased was
working as a Clerk in postal department and
was earning Rs.5,300/- per month and was the
only bread earner of the family. The original
claimant was at Exh.34 and has also relied
upon the documentary evidence, such as, FIR
Exh.35, Panchnama Exh.36, postmortem note
Exh.39 and also oral deposition of one Sonaji
at Exh.77. The Tribunal, after considering the
evidence on record and more particularly, FIR
Exh.35, oral depositions of Swati Maruti at
Exh.50, Sangeetaben Exh.51 and Sanjaybhai
Exh.52, came to the conclusion that the
drivers of both the vehicles were negligent
and attributed negligence in the ratio of
80:20 for the drivers of the truck and Metador
respectively. While considering the quantum,
the Tribunal considered the income of the
deceased at Rs.4,460/- per month and awarded
20% prospective income and after deducting
two-third towards personal expenses applied
multiplier of 16 and awarded a sum of
Rs.3,42,528/- as compensation under the head
of loss of dependency and awarded further
C/FA/3802/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022
amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss
of estate, Rs.5,000/- for transportation and
Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and thus,
while partly allowing the claim petition,
awarded a sum of Rs.3,69,528/- with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till its
realization and being aggrieved by the same,
the original claimant has preferred this
appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate for
the appellant-original claimant, Mr. M.R.
Prajapati, learned advocate for respondent
no.2, Mr. Shashikant Gade, learned advocate
for respondent no.3 - New India Insurance
Company Ltd. and Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned
advocate for respondent no.5 - Oriental
insurance Company Ltd. Though served, no one
appears for the respondent no.4.
4. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant
contended that as the age of the deceased was
25 and the deceased was in a permanent job,
the original claimant would be entitled to
prospective income to the extent of 50%
instead of 20% as awarded by the Tribunal. It
was further contended by Mr. Hakim that the
Tribunal has also committed an error in
deducting two-third towards personal expenses.
C/FA/3802/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022
Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of United India Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder
Kaur, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076, it was
contended by Mr. Hakim that the appellant as
mother would be entitled to parental
consortium of Rs.40,000/-. On the aforesaid
grounds, it was contended by Mr. Hakim,
learned advocate for the appellant that the
impugned judgment and award is erroneous and
the Tribunal has granted less compensation,
which should be enhanced as prayed for by
allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, Mr. Gade as well as Mr. Meena have
opposed this appeal and contended that the
Tribunal has granted just and adequate
compensation and the law prevailing on the
date of the accident and therefore, no
interference is called for. It was contended
that the appeal being meritless deserves to be
dismissed.
6. No other or further submissions, averments,
grounds and/or contentions are made by the
learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
7. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, following points
C/FA/3802/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022
for determination arise in this appeal:-
(i) Whether the Tribunal has correctly determined
the income of the deceased at Rs.4,460/- per
month or not?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding only 20% prospective income or not?
(iii)Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in
deducting two-third towards personal expenses
even though there was only one claimant and
the deceased was a Bachelor?
(iv) Whether the original claimant is entitled for
any consortium or not?
8. In order to consider point no.1, it would be
appropriate to refer to the oral deposition of
Sonaji at Exh.77 as well as the deposition of
the appellant at Exh.34. Upon reappreciation
of the evidence on record, it clearly appears
that the salary of the deceased who was
working in post department on the date of the
accident was Rs.4,460/- per month. Thus, the
Tribunal has not committed any error in
considering the income of the deceased at
Rs.4,460/- per month. Following the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
C/FA/3802/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022
Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, as
the age of the deceased was 25 years, the
appellant-original claimant would be entitled
to prospective income to the extent of 50% and
not 20% as granted by the Tribunal and thus,
the Tribunal has committed an error in
granting 20% prospective income. Similarly,
following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121, as there is only one claimant and the
deceased was bachelor, only one-half of the
amount is required to be deducted towards
personal expenses and not two-third. Thus, the
Tribunal has committed an obvious error in
deducting two-third towards personal expenses.
Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC
130, United India Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported
in AIR 2020 SC 3076 and New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Somwati, reported in (2020) 9
SCC 644, the appellant who is mother would be
entitled to parental consortium of
Rs.40,000/-. Hence, the questions arise for
determination in this appeal are answered
accordingly.
C/FA/3802/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022
9. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the
appellant-original claimant would be entitled
to compensation as under:-
Rs.4,460/- Income per month
+ Rs.2,230/- 50% prospective income
= Rs.6,690/- Income per month
- Rs.3,345/- One-half deduction towards
personal expenses
= Rs.3,345/- Income per month
X 12 Yearly
= Rs.40,140/- Income per year
X 18 Multiplier
= Rs.7,22,520/- Loss of dependency
+ Rs.40,000/- Conventional amount towards
parental consortium
+ Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate
+ Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses
= Rs.7,92,520/- Total compensation
10. Thus, the appellant-original claimant would be
entitled to total compensation of
Rs.7,92,520/-. As the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.3,69,528/-, the appellant would be entitled
to an additional amount of Rs.4,22,992/- as
additional compensation. However, the
additional amount shall bare interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition till its realization.
The impugned judgment and award stands
modified to the aforesaid extent. The
insurance Company shall deposit the additional
C/FA/3802/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2022
amount along with the interest as provided in
this judgment within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of this judgment.
11. The appeal is thus partly allowed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs in this
appeal. Registry is directed to remit the
record and proceedings back to the Tribunal
forthwith.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
Maulik
