Gujarat High Court
Hansaben Jagdishbhai Soni vs Bapara Decorators on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
C/FA/855/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 855 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
HANSABEN JAGDISHBHAI SONI & 1 other(s)
Versus
BAPARA DECORATORS & 2 other(s)
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 10/01/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal arises from the impugned
judgment and award dated 15.02.2007 in MACP No.428 of
1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.3 Fast
Track Court at Ahmedabad, whereby, the learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.3,63,000/- along with 8% interest from the date of
the filing of the claim petition till the amount of realization.
2. The factual matrix in the present case is as follows:-
2.1 That on 14.11.1998, the deceased who is the
C/FA/855/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023
husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 along-
with their family were going from Shrinathdwara to Udaipur
in Jeep Car bearing registration No.RJ-27-T-0431. At about
10.30 a.m., one Mini truck coming from the opposite direction
was in full speed and due to rash and negligent driving, the
said truck dashed with the Jeep Car in which the deceased
was travelling. The deceased sustained serious injuries and
later succumbed to the said injuries. The incident took place
due to the negligent of the driver of the mini truck. A
Complaint was also registered against the driver of the Mini
truck at Nathdwara Police Station.
2.2 The appellants herein filed MACP No.428 of 1999
for compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- alleging that the deceased
Jagdishbhai was aged 50 years and was doing the business of
screen printing. He was earning Rs.6000/- to Rs.8000/- per
month. Notice came to be issued. The respondents filed their
reply to the Claim Petition. On the basis of pleadings, the
learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-
"(1) Whether applicant proves that deceased died due
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle
involved?
(2) Whether applicant is entitled to get compensation? If
yes, what amount and from whom?
(3) What order and award?
3. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal was pleased to award
Rs.3,63,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved, the appellants
herein have filed the present First Appeal.
C/FA/855/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023
4. It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Manan A. Shah
appearing for the appellants-claimants that the learned Tribunal
has erred in coming to the conclusion with respect to the
compensation as awarded. He submits that the learned
Tribunal has erroneously considered the future loss of income
and also calculated dependency at 2/3rd of the amount while
adopting the wrong multiplier. He further submits that the
learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the full amount of
compensation without deducting 25% as the same could be
ordered to be recovered from the opponent-respondent in view
of the evidence on record. He submits that the learned
Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was bread earner
of the family and had succumbed to the injuries in the
vehicular accident.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. H.G. Mazmudar
appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that
the compensation as has been awarded by the Tribunal is just
and proper. He submits that no interference is called for. He
submits that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration
appropriate calculations to come to the conclusion with respect
to the compensation awarded. He, therefore, submits that no
interference is called for and the First appeal may be
dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
evidence on record.
7. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the
actual salary and income of the decease who was aged about
50 years can be safely considered to be Rs.3500/- per month
in view of the evidence brought on record. Accordingly, the
prospective income would be Rs. 875/-. The amount of Rs.
C/FA/855/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023
875/- is required to be added, and therefore, the total
prospective income of the deceased would be Rs. 4375/- per
month. After deducting the amount spent by the deceased on
himself i.e. 1/3rd, the said amount would be Rs.1458.
Therefore, the dependency benefits to the claimants would be
Rs.2916/- per month. Accordingly, applying a multiplier of 13
as per Sarla Verma's case for 12 months, the loss of
dependency benefit would be Rs.4,54,896/-, an addition of
Rs.15000/- towards conventional income to loss of estate and
Rs.80,000/- towards the conventional amount for loss of
consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
transportation is taken then, the total amount of compensation
would be Rs.5,64,896/-. Deducting 25% towards the negligency
of the Jeep driver, i.e. Rs.1,41,224/-, this Court is of the
opinion that the total compensation which the appellants are
entitled to would be Rs.4,23,672/-.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court the just and
proper compensation to which the the claimants-appellants in
First Appeal are entitled to is as follows:-
(i) Actual salary/income Rs. 3500/-
(ii) Prospective income Rs. 875/-
(25%)
Total- Rs. 4375/-
(iii) Deduction of amount spent by deceased on himself Rs. 1458/-
(iv) Dependency benefit Rs. 2916/-p.m.
(A) Loss of dependency benefit Rs. 4,54,896/-
(B) Conventional amount for loss to estate Rs. 15,000/-
(C) Conventional amount for loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/-
(D) Funeral expense & Transportation Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 5,64,896/-
C/FA/855/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/01/2023
Deduction 25% towards negligency of other vehicle i.e. Rs. 1,41,224/-
jeep. (Not joined as party)
(E) Total compensation Rs. 4,23,672/-
9. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to an additional
amount of compensation of Rs.60672/- along-with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum as such enhanced from the date of
filing of the claim petition till its realization.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present First
Appeal stands partly allowed. While the judgment and award
of the learned Tribunal is confirmed, the claimants-appellants
are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.60672/- over and
above as awarded by the learned Tribunal alongwith interest at
the rate of 6% per annum.
11. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the said additional amount of compensation within a period of
3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order before the
learned Tribunal. Upon depositing the same, the learned
Tribunal is directed to release the entire amount of
compensation to the claimants by way of RTGS/Account Payee
Cheque after following due procedure and after due verification
of the appellants within a period of 2 weeks thereafter.
12. First Appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.
13. Record and Proceedings be remitted back to the Tribunal
immediately.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
Manoj Kumar Rai
