Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Tejendrasing Meharsing Saini on 7 October, 2022
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/FA/738/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 738 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or
any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
TEJENDRASING MEHARSING SAINI & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2.1,2.2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 07/10/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)
1. Though served, the original claimants have chosen not to
appear before this Court nor engaged any lawyer to defend
the case.
C/FA/738/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
2. By way of present appeal under Section 173 read with166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant - Insurance
Company has challenged the judgment and award dated
19.01.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.
1926 of 2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux)
and 7th Additional District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, by which,
the Tribunal has awarded an amount of 24,50,500/- to the
original claimants, who are the parents of the deceased
Arpitkumar Kantibhai Macwan, who was aged about 26
years, lost his life in a vehicular accident.
3. The appeal came to be admitted on 25.03.2013 and
subsequently, record and proceedings of Motor Accident
Claims Petition No. 1926 of 2010 has been called for and the
same has been placed for perusal of this Court.
4. The short facts arise from the record are as under:
4.1. That on 19.06.2010, the deceased namely Arpitkumar
Kantibhai Macwan was driving the Scooty bearing
registration No. GJ-7-BA-2667 in correct side of the road
and at about 9.30am, when he was passing through the place
of incident i.e. near Ajidem Cross Road, Rajkot, at that time,
driver of one tanker bearing Registration No.GJ-18-U-6032
came by driving the tanker in rash and negligent manner,
endangering the human life and dashed with the two
wheeler, which was driven by the deceased. Due to the
impact of the accident, initially, the deceased received injury
on lower limb and was taken to Wockhardt Hospital Rajkot
and, thereafter, Sterling Hospital, Ahmedabad where he
C/FA/738/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
succumbed to injury on 02.07.2010.
4.2. Thereafter, criminal proceedings came to be initiated against
the driver of the tanker. The parents of the deceased filed
Motor Accident Claims Petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the compensation of an amount
of Rs.40,54,355/-. Learned Tribunal, by impugned judgment
and award, allowed the petition in part and held that the
driver of the tanker sole negligent and awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.24,50,500/-.
4.3. Hence, this Appeal.
5. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant,
would submit that learned Tribunal has committed error in
applying the multiplier of 17 considering the age of the
deceased and the future economic loss. He would further
submit that at the time of accident, age of the parents was 60
and 55 years respectively and, therefore, multiplier of 9
should have been applied instead of multiplier of 17. He,
therefore, would submit that present appeal may be allowed.
6. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned advocate for the
appellant, Mr. Hiren Modi learned advocate for the
respondent No. 1 - owner of the vehicle.
7. It is brought to out notice that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of M/s. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
V. Mandala Yadagari Goud and Others reported in AIR 2019
SC 1825 has held that while applying multiplier, the age of
C/FA/738/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2022
the deceased is required to be considered and not the age of
the parents in case of an unmarried. Para - 13 of the said
decision reads as under:
"13. We are convinced that there is no need to once against take up
this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of three Judge
Bench and also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it is the
age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not
the age of the dependents."
8. In view of the above observations, we do no find any
substance in this appeal. Hence, present appeal is dismissed.
9. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(A.J.DESAI, J)
Sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
*F.S.KAZI.....
