Gujarat High Court
Jasaji @ Jashwantsinh ... vs Istiyakahmed Ajimkhan Pathan on 6 October, 2022
Bench: Mauna M. Bhatt
C/FA/1776/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1776 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
===============================================================
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 ?
===============================================================
JASAJI @ JASHWANTSINH UMEDSINHSOLANKI
Versus
ISTIYAKAHMED AJIMKHAN PATHAN & 1 other(s)
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PARESH M DARJI(3700) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 06/10/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
C/FA/1776/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2022
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ("the Act" for short) is filed challenging the judgment
and award dated 11.12.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), 4th Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha,
Himmatnagar in M.A.C.P. No.1771 of 2000 wherein the
Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,49,500/- with
interest @ of 7.5.% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim
Petition till realization with proportionate costs.
2. The brief facts are as under:
2.1. That on 20.8.2000, Divaben was proceeding from bus
stand of Dalpur village by walking. At that time, S.T. Bus
No.RJ.12-P-0721 came and dashed with Divaben (herein after
referred to as 'the deceased'), resulting into her death. For the
said accident, FIR was lodged and panchnama was drawn.
The original claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of
the Act seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. It was case of
original claimant that the accident occurred on account of sole
negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus. The
Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence on record, held that
driver of the ST Bus, sole negligent for occurrence of the
accident. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon
appreciation of evidence on record awarded total compensation
of Rs.1,49,500/-. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded,
C/FA/1776/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2022
present appeal is filed by the appellant - original claimant
seeking enhancement.
3. Heard Mr.Sandip Shah, learned advocate for the appellant
- original claimant and Mr.Paresh Darji, learned advocate for
respondent No.2 - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.
As liability has not been denied by respondent No.2, presence
of respondent No.1 is not necessary.
4. Mr. Sandip Shah, learned advocate for the appellant
submitted that the Tribunal is in error in assessing the income
of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.a. He submitted that the
deceased was doing masonry labour work and earning
Rs.1800/- p.m. The Tribunal ought to have considered
Rs.1800 p.m. as income of the deceased. He further submitted
that the Tribunal is in error in not awarding future prospective
income as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Pappu Dev Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar reported in AIR 2020
SC 4424 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further
submitted that the multiplier of 17 has been erroneously
applied by the Tribunal instead of 18.
4.1. In relation to compensation under other conventional
heads, he submitted that the original claimant would be
C/FA/1776/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2022
entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses. In support of his submission, he relied upon the
decision of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. He, thus
submitted to enhance the compensation accordingly.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Paresh Darji, learned advocate
for respondent No.2 - Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation relied upon the decision of the Tribunal and
submitted that in absence of any income proof, the Tribunal
has appropriately assessed the income of the deceased
notionally at Rs.15,000/- p.a. He further submitted that for
the year 2000, the income assessed by the Tribunal, of a
labourer at Rs.15,000/- is appropriate. However, he could not
controvert the submission of the appellant that no prospective
income has been awarded to the claimant. In relation to the
compensation under other conventional heads namely,
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses he submitted
that the tribunal has appropriately considered it and does not
call for interference.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, considered the judgment passed by the Tribunal and
perused the R&P which has been placed before this Court at
C/FA/1776/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2022
the time of hearing of this appeal.
7. Upon re-appreciation of evidence, it is noticed that in the
deposition, the original claimant, has stated that the deceased
was doing masonry labour work and earning Rs.1800/- p.m. It
is quite appreciated that for the work, deceased was doing, it
would be difficult to place any income proof. However,
considering the nature of work the deceased was doing, there
is probability that one may not get work for all 30 days.
Therefore, in my opinion the Tribunal is correct in assessing
the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- notionally. I agree
with the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that
the claimant would be entitled to 50% rise towards future
prospective income as she was 25 years of age at the time of
accident. Instead of ½, 1/3rd personal expenses ought to have
been deducted and multiplier of 18 would be applicable.
Therefore, the original claimant would be entitled for
dependency loss as under:
"Rs.15,000 p.a. + Rs.7500 (50% prospective income) =
Rs.22,500 - Rs.7500 (1/3rd personal expenses) = Rs.15,000 x
18 (multiplier) = Rs. 2,70,000/-."
8. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pappu Dev Yadav (supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors.
C/FA/1776/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2022
(supra), in my opinion the original claimant would be entitled
to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- would be
appropriate towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to
total compensation as under:
Dependency Loss Rs.2,70,000/-
Consortium Rs.40,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.3,40,000/-
ORDER
(1) First Appeal is partly allowed.
(2) The appellants - original claimants would be
entitled to get total compensation of Rs.3,40,000/-. As
the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,49,500/-,
respondent No.2 - Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation shall deposit the balance amount of
compensation of Rs.1,90,500/- [Rs.3,40,000 -
Rs.1,49,500] with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
with proportionate costs, from the date of filing of the
claim petition till its realization with the Tribunal within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.
C/FA/1776/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2022
(3) The amount lying with the tribunal /FDR, same
shall be disbursed to the original claimant through RTGS,
after due verification. The rest of the judgment and
award passed by the learned Tribunal shall remained
unaltered.
(4) Deficit Court Fees, if any, is to be paid by the
appellant within a period of four weeks, failing which the
amount shall be recovered from the amount to be
deposited by respondent No.2 - Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation.
(5) Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and
Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V.
