Gujarat High Court
Madhuben Gokadbhai Sodhaparmar vs Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Patel on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/FA/2461/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2461 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
MADHUBEN GOKADBHAI SODHAPARMAR
Versus
JITENDRABHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 22/07/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate Mr. Bhalodi submits that
challenge has been given to the judgment and award
passed by the MACT Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad in MACP
C/FA/2461/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
No.1289 of 2013. Mr. Bhalodi submits that the Tribunal
has failed to consider the income of the deceased from
agriculture and animal husbandry work and has assessed
the monthly income at Rs.4,000/- only. Mr. Bhalodi states
that consortium money has not been granted as per the
judgment of Apex Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.
reported in (2018) A.C.J. 2782. Incomes under the heads
of funeral expenses and loss of estate have also not been
awarded.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar submitted that
the assessment of income has been rightly done by the
Tribunal and contested that the prospective income ought
to have been calculated by adding 25% instead of 30%.
He also stated that the rate of interest is also not in
accordance with the current economy of the country.
3. Considering the fact that the deceased was into
agricultural activity and was also doing animal husbandry
work, the monthly income could be assessed at Rs.5,300/-
instead of Rs.4,000/-. Considering the judgment of Apex
C/FA/2461/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157, an
addition of 25% is to be made to assess the future
prospective income and thus, the monthly income would
come to Rs.6,750/-. Out of the said amount, 1/3rd has to
be deducted towards personal expenses as there are
three dependents and therefore, the monthly income
would come to Rs.4,500/- [6,750 - 2,250]. Considering the
age of deceased at the time of accident, the multiplier of
13 is to be adopted and thus, the total amount under the
head of prospective loss of income would come to
Rs.7,02,000/- [4500 x 12 x 13].
4. The claimants shall also be entitled for Rs.1,20,000/-
under the head of loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/-
each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral
expenses respectively in view of the judgment in the case
of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) A.C.J.
2782. Thus, the total compensation would come to
Rs.8,52,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimants had
submitted purshis (Exh.23) by which they had agreed to
C/FA/2461/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
waive 15% amount towards contributory negligence of
the driver of motor-cycle in which the deceased was
riding pillion. Hence, from the total amount of
Rs.8,52,000/-, an amount equivalent to 15% is required to
be deducted towards contributory negligence and thus,
the amount comes to Rs.7,24,200/- [8,52,000 - 1,27,800].
The Tribunal has already awarded compensation of
Rs.5,40,341/- and thus, the claimants would be entitled
for additional compensation of Rs.1,83,859/-.
5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent
that the appellants-original claimants shall be entitled for
additional compensation of Rs.1,83,859/- along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
application till its realization, over and above the
compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The
appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to
costs.
(GITA GOPI, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
