Gujarat High Court
Vaishaliben Gopalbhai Rana vs Zafrullakhan Amankhan Pathan on 7 October, 2022
Bench: Mauna M. Bhatt
C/FA/2011/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2011 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT 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 No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
VAISHALIBEN GOPALBHAI RANA & 4 other(s)
Versus
ZAFRULLAKHAN AMANKHAN PATHAN & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN HAKIM, LD.ADVOCATE FOR MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT(193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 07/10/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ("the Act" for short) is filed by the original claimant challenging the
C/FA/2011/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
judgement and award dated 07/05/2011, passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), 6th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in
Motor Accident Claims Petition No.23 of 2005, wherein claim petition
filed by the original claimants came to be allowed in part and
compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- was awarded with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization, with proportionate costs.
2. Short facts, arising from the record, are as under:
On 06/12/2004 at around 1:30 pm, Gopalbhai Rana,
Lalitaben Rana and Hinaben Rana were going on Borsad to Petlad road
by Autorickshaw No.GJ-7-Z-2254. When they reached near Khodiar
Mata temple, on Borsad-Petlad road, a S.T.Bus No.GJ-18-V-6898 came
from opposite side in rash and negligent manner with full speed and
dashed with Autorickshaw. Resultantly the Autorickshaw turned turtle
into the ditch. Gopalbhai Rana and Lalitaben Rana died on the spot,
whereas Hinaben Rana sustained serious injuries. For the said accident,
original claimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. It was case of the
original claimants that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the
driver of the S.T.Bus No.GJ-18-V-6898.
C/FA/2011/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
Upon filing of the claim petition, Notices were issued.
Respondents appeared and filed their written statements. Tribunal after
hearing the parties and upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, decided the issue of negligence in favour of the
original claimants by holding driver of the S.T.Bus, sole negligent for the
said accident. In the impugned judgement and award, the Tribunal
awarded total compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realisation, with proportionate costs, under different heads, as under:
Future loss of income means future dependency Rs.2,60,000/-
amount
Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Total compensation Rs.2,65,000/-
3. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present
appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim, for the
appellants- original claimants, learned advocate Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt,
for respondent No.2- Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
("GSRTC" for short) and learned advocate Mr. Meena for respondent
C/FA/2011/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
No.4. Since liability has not been denied by respondent No.2- GSRTC,
presence of other respondents is not necessary for deciding this appeal
and dispensed with. Record and proceedings of the case have been
secured and placed before this court for perusal.
5. Mr.Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants
submitted that the Tribunal is in error in not assessing the income of the
deceased correctly. He submitted that the deceased was doing tailoring
work and thereby earning Rs.5,000/- per month to help her family,
however, the tribunal has assessed yearly income of the deceased at
Rs.30,000/-. He further submitted that for the nature of work, the
deceased was doing, it is difficult to produce any income proof and even
in the case of housewife, the Courts have considered income of the
deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum . He
further submitted that Tribunal is in error in not awarding future
prospective rise as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, the Tribunal has erroneously
deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses instead of 1/4 th, as the
deceased was survived by 4 dependents. Multiplier of 13 would be
applicable as the age of the deceased was 47 years at the time of accident.
C/FA/2011/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
He further submitted that the Tribunal is in error in not
awarding compensation under other conventional heads i.e. loss of estate
and funeral expenses as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC
1211. In relation to consortium, learned tribunal has not awarded any
compensation towards loss of consortium. In support of his submissions,
he relied upon decision delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru
Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 as well as in the case of United
India Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. He submitted that original claimants
would be entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/- each for four dependents.
He thus, requested to enhance the compensation accordingly.
6. Per contra, Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the
respondent- GSRTC submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered
the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum. She further
submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal being just
C/FA/2011/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
compensation, does not call for any interference and thus, submitted to
dismiss the appeal.
7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
perused the record and proceedings of the case.
8. It is noticed that the deceased was doing tailoring work and
was earning out of same. However considering nature of work, it would
be difficult to produce any income proof. Therefore, considering the
nature of work deceased was doing and the economic standard of the year
in which the accident took place, in my opinion, Rs.3,000/- per month
would be appropriate for assessing income of the deceased. As the
deceased was 47 years of age at the time of accident, the claimants would
be entitled for 30% rise towards future prospective income. Moreover, in
view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma and others (supra), 1/4 is required to be deducted towards
personal expenses instead of 1/3. Considering age of the deceased as 47
years, multiplier of 13 has been correctly taken by the tribunal. Therefore,
the original claimants would be entitled to dependency loss as under:
C/FA/2011/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
"Rs.3,000/- per month + Rs.900/- (30% future prospective rise) =
Rs.3,900/- per month - Rs.975/- (1/4 towards personal expenses) =
Rs.2,925/- per month x 12 months = Rs.35,100/- per annum x 13
multiplier (considering age of the deceased at 47 years) =
Rs.4,56,300/-".
9. In relation to consortium, I am in agreement with the
submission advanced by learned advocate for the original claimants, that
they would be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of
consortium. Further, the original claimants would be entitled to get
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
10. The original claimants thus would be entitled to get total
compensation as under:
Loss of Future income Rs.4,56,300/-
Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4 dependent) Rs.1,60,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation Rs.6,46,300/-
C/FA/2011/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
11. In view of the above, following order is passed:-
ORDER
(1) First Appeal is partly allowed.
(2) The appellants - original claimants would be entitled
to get total compensation of Rs.6,46,300/-. As the Tribunal has
awarded an amount of Rs.2,65,000/-, the respondent - GSRTC
shall deposit the balance amount of compensation of Rs.3,81,300/-
[Rs.6,46,300/- - Rs.2,65,000/-] with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum with proportionate costs, from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realization, with the Tribunal within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(3) The original claimants are entitled for the compensation and
the same shall be disbursed to the original claimants through
RTGS, after due verification. The rest of the judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal shall remained unaltered.
C/FA/2011/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
(4) Deficit Court Fees, if any, is to be paid by the appellants
within a period of four weeks, failing which the amount shall be
recovered from the amount to be deposited by the insurance
company.
(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.
sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
DIPTI PATEL
