Oriental Insurance Company vs Heirs Of Decd. Arjunsinh Nirubha
2023 Latest Caselaw 3140 Guj

     C/FA/784/2012                              JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 784 of 2012


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
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 ?

==========================================================
                    ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
                                Versus
             HEIRS OF DECD. ARJUNSINH NIRUBHA & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.RUSHANG MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430)
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                            Date : 21/04/2023

                           ORAL JUDGMENT

Though served, no one appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and

3.

1. The appellant - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has

preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act

C/FA/784/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2023

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), being aggrieved and

dissatisfied by the judgement and award passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surendranagar (hereinafter

referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 725 of 2001 on

30.11.2011.

2. The facts that emerge from the record are as under:-

2.1 That on 12.2.2001 at about 3.00 p.m. deceased Arjunsinh

Nirubha was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. GJ-13-E-

1818 which was being driven by the original opponent No.2 and

when they reached about 1 k.m. away from Khambhlav village on

the Limbi Hadala road, the original opponent No.2 was driving his

vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he lost

control over the motorcycle and it fell into a ditch and the deceased

sustained serious injuries and succumbed to his injuries. At the time

of the accident, the deceased was 20 years old and was earning

Rs.2,200/- per month and was the only bread winner of his family

and the claimant- his mother being the only legal heir filed the claim

C/FA/784/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2023

petition seeking compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs from the opponents.

The opponent No.1 was the owner of the motorcycle which was

insured with the opponent No.3 -Insurance Company.

3. The summons was duly served to all the opponents and the

opponent Nos. 1 and 2 remained absent whereas the opponent No.3

appeared and filed a written statement at Exh.60 inter alia denying

all the averments made in the petition including the involvement of

the offending vehicle in the accident.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence of the

parties on record, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.3.00 lakhs as compensation to be recovered jointly and severally

from all the opponents with costs and interest at the rate of 9% from

the date of filing of the petition till realization. The Tribunal

considered the monthly income of the deceased Arjunsinh Nirubha

to be of Rs.2,400/- per month and deducted 1/3rd as personal

expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 15 and under

all conventional heads granted an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs as

C/FA/784/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2023

compensation.

5. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant - Insurance

Company has filed the present appeal mainly contending that the

order of the Tribunal is illegal, improper, perverse and against the

evidence on record and the proper multiplier is not applied,

considering the age of the claimant who is the mother of the

deceased Arjunsinh Nirubha. That the Tribunal has also erred in

deducting the 1/3rd amount as personal expenses of the deceased

and the income of Rs.2,400/ per month is also not proper. That the

award is on the higher side and erroneous and the impugned order

must be quashed and set aside.

6. Mr.Rushang Mehta, learned advocate appearing for

Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant has

submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in calculating the

amount of compensation and the impugned order is on the higher

side and must be set aside and the appeal must be allowed.

C/FA/784/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2023

7. Mr.Y.J.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the original

claimant No.1.1 has submitted that the learned Tribunal has granted

just compensation to the claimant and no order of interference is

required and hence, the appeal of the Insurance Company must be

dismissed.

8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective

parties and perused the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal

has considered the amount earned by the deceased Arjunsinh

Nirubha to be of Rs.2,400/- per month as the deceased was working

as a contract Supervisor in the Water Supply Department and the

accident occurred on 12.2.2001. At the time of the accident, the

deceased was aged 20 years and was not married and considering the

dependency loss and other conventional heads, the amount of

Rs.3.00 lakh was awarded as compensation. It is pertinent to note

that there are no cross objections filed by the original claimant and

the orginal claimant has not challenged the amount of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal. Considering all the facts, it appears that the

submission of the learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance

C/FA/784/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2023

Company cannot be considered as the learned Tribunal has

considered the age of the deceased to be of 20 years and the income

of Rs.2400/- per month with future prospects as the deceased was

working as a contract Supervisor in the Water Supply Department

and has granted the amount of compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs which

is just, reasonable and proper and acceptable to the claimant. In view

of the fact that no cross objections are filed. The appeal fails and

accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(S. V. PINTO,J) BEENA SHAH