Gujarat High Court
Manjulaben Wd/O. Jayantibhai ... vs Saiyed Javed Hussein Niyaz ... on 27 January, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/1258/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1258 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
========================================================
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 copy of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
========================================================
MANJULABEN WD/O. JAYANTIBHAI KODARBHAI PATEL & 2 other(s)
Versus
SAIYED JAVED HUSSEIN NIYAZ MOHAMMED & 2 other(s)
========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 27/01/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0.] The present Appeal is a claimants' appeal filed for
enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar,
vide judgment and award dated 21.04.2007 in MACP No.1819 of 2000.
C/FA/1258/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
[2.0.] The facts in nutshell are as under:
[2.1.] That, on 25.08.2000 at about 10:15 a.m., the deceased
Jayantibhai was going on his scooter bearing registration No.G.U.Z-
4156 towards Village Surajpura at his service on Shamlaji National
Highway, when he reached near Motipura octroi check-post, the
opponent No.1 - Jeep Driver bearing registration No.G.A.Q-5294, has
dashed the scooter from the backside and due to that, the deceased
sustained serious bodily injury and died.
[2.2.] After considering the oral as well as the documentary
evidence, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim
petition by awarding Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation to the
appellants - original claimants.
[2.3.] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the present appellants - original claimants have
filed the present First Appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
[3.0.] Though Rule was served upon defendant Nos.1 and 2, no
one is appearing.
[4.0.] Heard Mr. N.K.Majmudar, learned counsel for the
appellants - original claimants as also Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned
advocate for defendant No.3 - Insurance Company.
[5.0.] I have also perused the original records and proceedings
of the claim petition and considered submissions made by the learned
counsel Mr. N. K. Majmudar for the appellants- original claimants and
learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat for the respondent no.3 -
Insurance Company. The short question arises in the present appeal is
that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the income of
the deceased and not awarded the just compensation.
C/FA/1258/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
[6.0.] I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and also considered the records and proceedings. In light of the
reported decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Anr. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Meghma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ral Alias Chuhur Ram & Ors
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC
3076, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is not a just
compensation, and therefore, the impugned judgment and award is
required to be modified and substituted by awarding further
compensation of Rs.5,34,912/- in addition to the amount awarded by
the learned Tribunal of Rs.7,00,000/-.
[7.0.] Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants -
original claimants would be entitled to compensation under the head
of loss of dependency as under:
"Rs.8,000/- (p.m.) + Rs.2400/- (30% prospective income) =
Rs.10,400 - Rs.3466 (1/3 deduction towards personal
expenses) = Rs.6934 x 12 = Rs.83,208/- x 14 (as the age of the
deceased was 45 years) = Rs.11,64,912/- + Rs.70,000/-
(different conventional heads)= Rs.12,34,912/-."
[8.0.] Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled to get the
additional amount of compensation at the rate of 6% simple interest
from the date of application till the realization. Therefore, I pass the
following order:
[8.1.] The present appeal is hereby partly allowed and the
appellants are entitled to get the additional amount of compensation
to the tune of Rs.5,34,912/- at the rate of 6% simple interest from the
C/FA/1258/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
date of application till the realization.
[8.2.] The insurance company is directed to deposit the
additional amount of compensation within 8 weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal. The
disbursement to be made after the amount deposited by the learned
Tribunal as per the final order passed by the learned Tribunal in Para
No.8, more particularly, the operative part of the judgment and order.
[8.3.] The Records and Proceedings to be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. The appeal is
hereby allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the impugned
judgment and award remains unaltered.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J.)
Lalji Desai
