Gujarat High Court
Vandna Santkumar Sharma vs Vidit Santkumar Sharma on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/3262/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3262 of 2021
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 ?
==========================================================
VANDNA SANTKUMAR SHARMA
Versus
VIDIT SANTKUMAR SHARMA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS LAKSHA BHAVNANI FOR MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI(5320) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 31/03/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
C/FA/3262/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
judgment and award rendered by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar in MACP No. 493
of 2016, which came to be partly allowed by common
judgment and award dated 20.01.2020, the original
claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Act").
2. Heard Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari, learned advocate
with Ms. Laksha Bhavnani, learned advocate for the
appellant and Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned advocate for
respondent no.3 insurance company. Though served, no
one appears for the other respondents.
3. The respondent no.3 insurance company has not
challenged the liability and therefore, the presence
of respondents no.1 and 2 is not inevitable for
deciding the present appeal. As short issue arises
in this appeal, at the request of learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for
final disposal forthwith.
4. The facts reveal that the accident occurred on
20.11.2015 between Mahendra Verito car bearing
registration no. GJ-01-KM-7588, which got overturned
near Tapovan Circle on the road towards Visat Petrol
Pump within the jurisdiction of Gandhinagar. An FIR
was lodged with the jurisdictional police station and
the claimants relied upon oral as well as documentary
evidence. It was the case of the appellant that the
C/FA/3262/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022
deceased had completed her study in Electrical
Engineer from Gujarat Technological University and
had a very bright future and was earning Rs. 15,000 -
20,000/- and the deceased had been offered salary of
Rs. 50,000/- by one concern named Liberty
Productions. The Tribunal came to the conclusion
that the accident occurred because of the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the car. While
considering the quantum, the Tribunal relied upon the
offer letter at exhibit 55, the curriculum vitae at
exhibit 43 and fixed the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.7,000/- and after giving increase in
income of 40% by way of prospective income, deducted
1/2 towards personal expenses and applying multiplier
of 18, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,58,400/- as
compensation under the head of loss of dependency,
Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 4,000/-
towards transportation, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
thus, the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim
petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 10,95,400/-
with 8% interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition till its realisation including costs. Being
aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has raised one contention in the appeal to the effect
that the Tribunal has committed an error in
determining the income and restricting it to
Rs.7,000/- per month. Relying upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meena Pawaia &
Ors. vs. Ashraf Ali & Ors. decided on 18.11.2021 in
C/FA/3262/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022
Civil Appeal No. 6724 of 2021, it was contended that
in similar fact situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while considering the income of the student of
engineering, has determined the income at Rs.
10,000/-. According to the learned cousnel for the
appellant, the income deserves to be enhanced
accordingly. It was also further contended that the
Tribunal has committed error in considering the
compensation under different conventional heads. The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied
upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram
alias Chuhru Ram and Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC
130, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder
Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Ors. reported in AIR
2020 SC 3076 and in the case of the New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Somwati reported in (2020) 9
SCC 644, contended that the appellant being mother of
the only daughter who lost her life in the accident,
would be entitled to filial compensation. On the
aforesaid ground, it was contended by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant that the impugned
judgment and award be modified and appeal be allowed
to the said extent.
6. Per contra, Ms.Kirti Pathak, learned advocate
for the respondent insurance company has opposed this
appeal. Ms. Pathak contended that the appellant has
not adduced any evidence of income before the
Tribunal. Ms. Pathak contended that the ratio laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meena
C/FA/3262/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022
Pawaia (supra) would not be applicable to the case on
hand. According to Ms. Pathak, the Tribunal has
rightly assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.7,000/- per month. Ms. Pathak also contended that
the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgment in
the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and
therefore, no modification is called for and the
appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.
7. No other or further contentions or grounds have
been raised by the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties.
8. The following two questions arise for
determination in this appeal -
1) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in
determining the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-
per month, more particularly in view of the fact that
the deceased was a promising engineering graduate and
had a bright future or not?
2) Whether the appellant as mother of the deceased
would be entitled to any filial consortium or not?
9. It is a matter of record that by oral assertion,
it is contended by the appellant-original claimant
that the deceased, who was her daughter was a
graduate in Engineering from Gujarat Technological
University and was working in a firm and was earning
Rs.15,000-20,000/-. It is a matter of fact that the
deceased was a qualified engineering graduate and had
C/FA/3262/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022
done B.E. Electrical from a reputed university. Even
the offer letter at exhibit 55 indicates that she had
received offer for job with salary of Rs.50,000/-.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in such similar case, while
considering the income of a student of Civil Engineer
has determined the income of similarly situated case
at Rs.2,000/- based upon the minimum wages. In the
case on hand, it is an admitted position that the
deceased was a graduate in engineering. Even if the
minimum earning is taken into consideration, based
upon minimum wages standard, considering the date of
accident and following the ratio laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meena Pawaia (supra),
the income of the deceased can very well be enhanced
to Rs.10,000/-. This court has taken a similar view
in First Appeal No. 5105 of 2009 in its judgment
dated 08.02.2022 wherein this Court considered the
income of a 22 old young boy who succumbed to the
injuries in the accident who was studying in B.Tech.
Course in Engineer College in Udaipur and has
determined the income at Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly,
upon re-appreciation of the evidence as a whole, we
deem it fit to determine the income of the deceased
at Rs.10,000/- p.m. Question No.1 is answered
accordingly.
10. Similarly, following the ratio laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited (supra), Satinder Kaur alias
Satwinder Kaur (supra) and Somwati (supra), the
appellant being mother of the deceased, would be
C/FA/3262/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022
entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- and
following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), which is also
relied upon by the Tribunal, the appellant would be
entitled to Rs. 15,000/- as compensation under loss
of estate and Rs.15,000/- as funeral charges.
11. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the
appellant would be entitled to compensation as under-
Rs.10,000/- (income p.m.) X 4,000/- (40%
prospective income) = Rs.14,000/- - Rs. 7,000/-
= Rs.7,000/- (1/2 deduction towards personal
expenses) X 12 X 18 = Rs.15,12,000/- (Loss of
dependency)
Loss of dependency - Rs.15,12,000/-
Filial consortium - Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
--------------
Total compensation Rs.15,82,000/-
==============
Thus, the appellant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs. 15,82,000/-. As the Tribunal has
awarded Rs. 10,95,400/-, the appellant would be
entitled to additional compensation of Rs.
4,86,600/-. The respondent insurance company is
directed to deposit the additional compensation of
Rs.4,86,600/- along with 6% interest on such enhanced
amount from the date of filing of the claim petition
till its realisation within a period of 8 weeks from
the date of receipt of this judgment and order. The
impugned judgment and award stands modified to the
aforesaid extent. The appeal is thus partly allowed
C/FA/3262/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2022
to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no
order as to costs. R & P be transmitted back to the
Tribunal forthwith.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
