Gujarat High Court
The Shri Ram Reneral Insurance Co. ... vs Rehmantbabi Ata Mohammed Sheikh on 25 January, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/1917/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1917 of 2017
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 ?
==========================================================
THE SHRI RAM RENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
REHMANTBABI ATA MOHAMMED SHEIKH & 6 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 7
SUNITA S CHATURVEDI(2572) for the Defendant(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 25/01/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
C/FA/1917/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2022
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
judgment and award dated 01.03.2017 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Main), Vadodara in
MACP No. 455 of 2014, the insurance company has
preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (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 19.03.2014 at
about 7.30 PM Rasulji Chal, in the city of Vadodara
in the area known as Navayard Loko Shed. It is the
case of the original claimants that deceased Ata
Mohammed Chirag Sheikh was walking on the road after
completing his work at his garage and at that point
of time, on the pace of the occurrence, the truck
bearing registration no. GJ-9V-0381 being driven in
rash and negligent manner, in reverse direction, ran
over the deceased and deceased Ata Mohammed Chirag
Sheikh died on the spot. An FIR was registered with
the Fatehgujh Police Station being I-CR No. 43/14 and
the present claim petition was filed under Section
166 of the Act by the respondents-original claimants
and claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
2.2 The claimants relied upon the oral evidence of
one of the claimant at exhibit 22 and 24 and also
relied upon documentary evidence such as FIR at
exhibit 26, panchnama at exhibit 27, inquest
panchnama at exhibit 28, PM note at exhibit 29. The
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.
C/FA/1917/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2022
45,000/- p.a. and gave prospective income to the tune
of 30% and applying multiplier of 14, awarded a sum
of Rs. 8,19,000/- after deducting 1/4th towards
personal expenses. Over and above the same, the
Tribunal also awarded Rs.2,10,000/- as compensation
under different conventional heads and thus, while
partly allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of
Rs.10,29,000/-with 9% interest from the date of the
filing of the claim petition till its realisation and
being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed by the insurance company.
3. Heard Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the
appelant and Ms. Sunita Chaturvedi, learned advocate
for the respondents-original claimants.
4. Mr. Raval, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant insurance company contended that there is
no proof of age and the Tribunal has therefore
committed an error in coming to the conclusion that
the age of the deceased was between 40-45 years.
According to Mr. Raval, the age of the deceased was
65 years on the date of the accident. Mr. Raval
further contended that as per the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680,
as the deceased was self employed person and was
running a garage, the Tribunal has committed an error
in granting 30% prospective income instead of 25%.
On the aforesaid two grounds, Mr. Raval contended
that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment
and award be modified accordingly.
C/FA/1917/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2022
5. Per contra, Ms. Sunita Chaturvedi, learned
advocate has opposed the appeal and has submitted
that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and both the grounds raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be
negatived and the appeal being meritless, deserves to
be dismissed.
6. No other or further submissions or contentions
or grounds have been raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties.
7. Upon perusing the copies of the relevant
evidence supplied by Mr. Raval, it is no doubt true
that there is no separate or independent evidence on
record to prove the income of the deceased. Mr.
Raval made an attempt to rely upon the copy of the
Aadhar Card, however, the same was not permitted to
be produced on record before the Tribunal and
therefore, the same cannot be considered. Vis-a-vis
this, on perusal of the Post Mortem report at exhibit
29, the same indicates that the age of the deceased
was 40 years. We find that the Tribunal relying upon
the same, has considered the age of the deceased to
be between 44-45 years, i.e. 45 years old and has
applied multiplier of 14. In absence of any specific
data, the Tribunal has committed no error in relying
upon the PM report to determine the age of the
deceased and hence, the contention raised by Mr.
Raval deserves to be negatived.
C/FA/1917/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2022
8. From the record and evidence, it clearly
transpires that the deceased was a self employed
person running a garage of his own and therefore,
following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the prospective
income would be to the tune of 25% and not 30% as
granted by the Tribunal. We also find that the
Tribunal has awarded excessive amount under head of
consortium and loss of estate. However, following
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias
Satwinder Kaur and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076,
Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram
alias Chuhru Ram and Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC
130 and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Somwati
reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644, the original claimants
would be entitled to consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each
and therefore, the same would not make any difference
in the total compensation. Hence, the only
modification which is required in the impugned
judgment and award is to consider 25% prospective
income instead of 30% prospective income. Having
come to the aforesaid conclusion, the respondents-
original claimants would be entitled to compensation
as under -
Rs.5,000/- (income) + Rs. 1,250/- (25%
prospective income = Rs.6250/- - Rs. 1,562/-
(1/4th deduction towards personal expenses) =
Rs.4,688/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.7,87,584/- (Loss of
Dependency)
Loss of dependency - Rs.7,87,584/-
Loss of Consortium - Rs.1,00,000/-
C/FA/1917/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/01/2022
Loss of love and
affection and loss of estate- Rs.1,00,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs. 10,000/-
-------------
Total compensation Rs.9,97,584/-
=============
9. The total compensation would therefore come to
Rs. 9,97,584/- and hence, the appellant would be
entitled to refund of Rs. 31,416/- with proportionate
interest and costs. The appeal is thus partly
allowed. The impugned judgement and award stands
modified to the aforesaid extent. The award as
modified be implemented as per the original award
passed by the Tribunal. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
