Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Chimanbhai Shamalbhai Patel on 31 January, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/2427/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2427 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 ?
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
CHIMANBHAI SHAMALBHAI PATEL & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 31/01/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant United India
Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the judgment and award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary),
Vadodara in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1966 of 2001
dated 20/09/2006 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly
C/FA/2427/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2022
allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.7,71,000/- towards
the compensation to original claimants with the interest at the
rate of 7.5% till realization.
2. Original case in brief is narrated as under:
2.2. The claim petition arose out of accident occurred on
18/11/2001. When deceased Chandrakant Chimanlal Patel
was driving his scooter from Dabhoi to Vadodara along with a
pillion rider, Kanubhai Maganbhai Patel and when they
reached near the site of the accident, one tempo bearing
registration no.GJ-6T-6449 collided with their scooter, as a
result of which, Chandrakant Chimnlal Patel received fatal
injuries. Heirs and legal representatives of Chandrakant
Chimanlal Patel filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1966
of 2011. Considering the evidence produced on record, the
learned Tribunal has partly allowed Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.1966 of 2011 and awarded compensation of
Rs.7,71,000/- to the claimants as referred above.
3. Mr. H. G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the appellant
raised objection/contention mainly on the issue of negligence
and submitted that the aspect of negligence was not properly
considered by the learned Tribunal while determining the
amount of compensation. It is also contended by the learned
advocate for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has
committed error while calculating the amount of
compensation considering the income of the deceased at the
time of the accident. It is submitted by learned advocate for
the appellant that the amount determined by the learned
Tribunal is on higher side and therefore, present appeal is
C/FA/2427/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2022
required to be considered.
4. Mr. H. G. Mazmudar, learned advocate has contended
that the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting prospective
income of the deceased at Rs.6,300/- per month and
dependency loss at Rs.4,200/- deducting 1/3rd for personal
expenses considering the income of the deceased at Rs.4,200/-
per month. It is also contended that 15 multiplier is also on
higher side and therefore, the same is required to be modified
considering 28 years age of the deceased at the time of the
accident as well as considering the age of the parents of the
deceased who were 50 years and 52 years at the time of the
accident.
5. Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel for the appellant has
referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and
submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded the excess
amount and therefore, the present appeal is required to be
allowed and amount of compensation is required to be
reduced.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi objected
the present appeal and submitted that the leaned Tribunal has
rightly considered the issue of income and quantum and
therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the
present appeal.
7. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties at length and perused the material placed on record.
C/FA/2427/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2022
8. The sole issue involved in the present appeal is to the
effect that whether the learned Tribunal has rightly
determined the amount of compensation or not.
9. Considering the said issue raised in the matter and after
hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present appeal is
required to be entertained.
10. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate
for the appellant and the decision relied upon in case of
Pranay Shetty (supra), instead of 1/3rd for personal expenses,
1/2 for personal expenses would be appropriate. Considering
the same, the amount comes to Rs.3,150/- i.e. ½ of Rs.6,300/-
and Rs.37,800/- per annum. Multiplier of 15 is also required
to be modified to multiplier of 17 considering the fact that the
deceased was 28 years old and unmarried. Hence, applying
multiplier of 17, the amount of loss of dependency would
come to Rs.6,42,000/- considering the age of the deceased at
the time of the accident. For loss of life, amount of Rs.80,000/-
and for other expenses, amount of Rs.15,000/- would become
justified. Therefore, total compensation would come to
Rs.7,37,600/-. The Tribunal has already awarded
compensation of Rs.7,71,000/-. Hence, the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to
the aforesaid extent that the amount awarded by the learned
Tribunal is to be reduced to the extent of Rs.33,400/- which
would served the interest of justice.
11. Therefore, I pass the following order:
C/FA/2427/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2022
11.1. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal
is hereby substituted and modified to the extent that the
amount awarded by the learned Tribunal which is
Rs.7,71,000/- is to be decreased to the extent that the said
amount is as per the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court comes to Rs.7,37,600/-. So, in light of the same,
present appellant Insurance Company is entitled to get refund
of Rs.33,400/- along with the proportionate cost and interest.
11.2. The learned Tribunal is hereby directed to refund the
said amount of Rs.33,400/- along with the proportionate cost
and interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of receipt of this
order to the present appellant Insurance Company by way of
issuing account payee cheque. The remaining amount of
award i.e. Rs.7,37,600/- is to be disbursed in favour of the
claimants by way of issuing account payee cheque.
12. Present appeal succeeds to the aforesaid extent and the
impugned judgment and award is to be modified substituting
the amount of award in favour of the claimants to the extent
of Rs.7,37,600/- towards the compensation and the additional
amount of Rs.33,400/- is to be refunded to the present
appellant company forthwith.
13. Record and proceedings be transmitted to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ILA
