Gujarat High Court
The Company Commander vs Kashiben Wd/O. Dalabhai Baria on 14 December, 2023
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4387/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4387 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
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 ?
================================================================
THE COMPANY COMMANDER & 2 other(s)
Versus
KASHIBEN WD/O. DALABHAI BARIA & 4 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 14/12/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants, i.e. No.1 -
The Company Commander, Dhranghdhra, District,
Surendranagar, No.2 - Union of India, New Delhi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4387/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2023
undefined
and No.3 - Ministry of Defence, New Delhi have
challenged the judgment and award dated 23.05.2005
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxi.), Dahod in M.A.C.P. No.1495 of 2004 (Old
M.A.C.P. No.425 of 1996), stating that the
compensation amount awarded is excessive and the
income assessed by the deceased is on the higher
side.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put
succinctly as under :-
On 12.02.1996, the deceased - Dalabhai Baria was
passing near the Police Station, at that time,
respondent No.1 driving the vehicle of the Military
Department in his possession, bearing Registration
No.90A 3398 KCL II, F.R.I. 052 by attaching another
vehicle which was out of order, came in a rash and
negligent manner. The deceased Dalabhai was
walking on foot with his bicycle. The front side of
the above vehicle of the Military Department dashed
the deceased, the wheel of the Military Department's
vehicle passed over the deceased's abdomen, in
particular, the pelvic region which crushed that part.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4387/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2023
undefined
The deceased was taken to the Government clinic for
treatment but he lost his life.
3. Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Ankit Shah
submitted that the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017
16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR
2009 SC 3104 would not be applicable in the present
matters since the judgment and award was passed on
23.05.2005. It is further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has considered the service of the deceased as
a 'Gangman' in the Western Railway, Dhrangadhra
has assessed the salary accordingly, but the amount
which has been raised is merely on the assumption,
since no evidence was produced to substantiate the
fact that he would not have been entitled for the rise
in income. Hence, it is submitted that the salary of
the deceased as on the date of accident - 12.02.1996
of Rs.2,499/- per month was required to be
considered. It is therefore, submitted that the
compensation amount granted in favour of the
claimant/s is very excessive.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4387/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2023
undefined
4. Heard learned Advocate for the claimants Mr. Nishit
A. Bhalodi who submitted that the deceased had a
very good chance for promotion and would have
earned a handsome salary even by way of increment.
The learned Tribunal was required to consider the
income by adding prospective rise which the learned
Tribunal has considered so and had come to
conclusion of the monthly income as Rs.8,800/- per
month. However, the deduction of half the amount
is not in accordance with the standards laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), since the claimants are four in number and
the said deduction was required to be considered as
1/4. Hence, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has
come to a wrong conclusion and has erred on that
count and also submitted that the multiplier of 18
has not been approved considering the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
(supra), where actually as per age, the multiplier of
17 was required to be adopted. It is further
submitted that the claimants are also entitled for
consortium loss and the amount under the head of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4387/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2023
undefined
loss of estate and for funeral expenses as laid down
in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and thus stated
that an amount of Rs.6,78,000/- as a compensation
amount is just and proper and rather, the claimants
are entitled for an increased amount.
5. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties, perused
the records of the case. The deceased was serving as
a 'Gangman' in the Western/Indian Railways of
Dhrangadhra and was aged 28 years at the time of
accident. The earning of the deceased was stated to
be Rs.2,458/- per month and the learned Tribunal has
assessed the income as Rs.2,499/- per month.
6. It is required to be noted that the deceased was
appointed in service on 02.09.1984. He was to
retire in the year 31.10.2021. He suffered the
accident at the age of 28 years on 12.02.1996. The
deceased had a very long period of service for his
retirement. It appears that the learned Tribunal has
considered the last pay and has also observed that he
would have received the benefit of Provident Fund,
Gratuity and Pension, had he been serving for a
period of 25 years. The deceased then would have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4387/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2023
undefined
received the increment in income and therefore, the
learned Tribunal has considered the income of the
deceased @ Rs.6,300/- per month. However, it is
admitted that this amount of Rs.6,300/- per month is
not supported by any documentary evidence. The
prospective rise in income has to be assessed in view
of the proposition of law accepted in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra).
7. The deceased would have certainly earnt his income
in his job, keeping in view the retirement date. The
learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the
amount as personal income as taking into
consideration the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), with the dependants of four under the head
of personal expenses, ¼ amount is required to be
deducted. In addition, the amount granted under the
head of funeral expenses is also very less and no
compensation has been granted under the head of
loss of estate. Further, the learned Tribunal was
also required to appreciate the judgment in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru
Ram reported in 2018 SCC 130. In view of the
reasoning given hereinabove, the amount as passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4387/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2023
undefined
by the learned Tribunal of Rs.6,78,000/- with interest
@ 9% per annum is just and proper.
8. In light of the above, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the judgment and award dated
23.05.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Dahod in M.A.C.P. No.1495
of 2004 (Old M.A.C.P. No.425 of 1996). The total
amount deposited with the accrued interest thereon
be paid to the claimant/s in accordance to the
proportion laid down by the learned Tribunal, within
a period of EIGHT (8) WEEKS from the date of
receipt of writ of the order of this Court.
9. In the result, the present Appeal fails. Record and
proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned
Court / Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE / SB-1 # 9
