Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Rajeshbhai Maganbhai ... on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/1476/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1476 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI : Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK: Sd/-
=======================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO
allowed to 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 judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation NO
of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=======================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VADODARA
Versus
RAJESHBHAI MAGANBHAI VASAVA(deleted) & 5 other(s)
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 3
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4,5,6
MR BK. RAJ(3794) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 15/02/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act" for short) by the appellants - Insurance
C/FA/1476/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2023
Company, wherein the appellant has prayed for
quashment of the impugned judgment and award dated
08.11.2017 passed by the Learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Judge, Vadodara in MACP
No.285/2014, whereby the learned Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.72,34,720/-.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as
under,
2.1 On 19.02.2014, when Ishwarbhai, Rakeshbhai
and Ramdev Ketkar were sitting on bench at
the place of offence, the original respondent
no.1 was coming towards them by driving
Tractor bearing Registration No.GJ-06-DG-6661
in a rash and negligent manner endangering
the human life and collided with the said
motorcycle, as a result of which, the
accident had taken place, because of which,
the deceased died. Therefore, Claim Petition
was filed before the Tribunal.
3.2 On filing of the claim petition, notice was
issued, which was duly served and in
pursuance thereto, they appeared before the
learned Tribunal through their advocate and
contested the claim petition by filing
written statement and thereby denied the
claim. Thereafter, the parties led evidence
before the Tribunal.
3.3 After considering the evidence produced
before the Tribunal, the Tribunal partly
allowed the claim petition and thereby held
C/FA/1476/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2023
the original opponent nos.1 to 3 jointly and
severely liable to pay compensation to the
claimants to the tune of Rs.92,74,720/- from
the date of petition till realization of the
amount with proportionate cost of the
petition.
3.4 However as there was some typographic error
in the judgment and award, an application for
review was filed, which was allowed and the
compensation was reduced and awarded to the
tune of Rs.72,61,240/-.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for
the appellant and learned advocate, Mr. Abhiraj
Trivedi for the respondents - original claimants.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that
the appellant has mainly challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground that the learned
Tribunal has committed an error while determining
the income of the deceased and, therefore only on
the ground of quantum, the award has been
challenged.
5. We have heard learned advocates for the parties
and also gone through the documents produced on
record.
6. From the record, it appears that on the day of
incident, the deceased was sitting along with
others, at that time, offending vehicle in
question came towards them driven by the
respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner
endangering the human life, as a result of which,
C/FA/1476/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2023
the accident had taken place and the deceased died
on the spot, for which, claim petition was filed,
wherein on conclusion of it, compensation as
stated in the impugned judgment and award has been
awarded. However considering the submissions
canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant,
we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal
has committed an error while calculating and
determining the quantum of compensation at the
time of awarding compensation. It seems that the
learned Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of
14 is applied considering the age of the deceased
instead of multiplier of 13. It is also recorded
in the impugned award that as per the documentary
evidence produced on record i.e. leaving
certificate, wherein the date of birth of the
deceased is shown as 01.06.1968, where the date of
accident is 19.02.2014 and thus at the time of
alleged incident, the aged of the deceased was
around 45 years and 8 months, which is more than 6
months. Therefore, the original claimants are
entitled to get compensation considering the
multiplier of 13 instead of multiplier of 14.
7. We have also considered the decisions upon which
reliance has been placed by learned advocate for
the appellant in case of Sarla Verma (supra) and
Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, considering the
income and prospective rise in the income, the
original claimants are entitled to get future loss
of dependency. Considering the multiplier of 14,
C/FA/1476/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2023
which is wrongly applied by the learned Tribunal,
the present appeal deserves to be allowed in part
and additional compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal deserves to be refunded to the appellant
- Insurance Company.
8. In view of the aforesaid observations and
discussion, the present First Appeal stands
allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award
dated 08.11.2017 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Judge, Vadodara in MACP
No.285/2014 is hereby modified and the appellants
- original claimants are entitled to the amount of
compensation of Rs.66,65,744/- instead of
Rs.72,61,240/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The
amount, which is invested in the FDRs as well as
amount deposited before the Registry shall be
remitted back to the concerned Tribunal for
disbursement of the amount to the original
claimants. The disbursement of the aforesaid
amount of compensation shall be after proper
identification of the claimants and following
procedure either by RTGS or by NEFT. No order as
to costs.
Sd/-
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.)
Gautam
