Madhuben Wd/O. Jaguji Laxmanji vs Sadhu Babubhai Laldas (Deleted)
2023 Latest Caselaw 4588 Guj

     C/FA/4866/2008                               JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4866 of 2008

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                   YES
     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 ?

==========================================================
              MADHUBEN WD/O. JAGUJI LAXMANJI & 2 other(s)
                               Versus
              SADHU BABUBHAI LALDAS (DELETED) & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT JANI(352) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR NAGESH C SOOD(1928) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                              Date : 16/06/2023

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants - original claimants against the respondents - original opponents under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 07/05/2007 passed by the learned MACT (AUX), Mehsana in

C/FA/4866/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023

MACP No.740 of 2003. The parties are herein after referred to as the applicants and opponents as they stood in the original petition for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. Brief facts as emerging from the record as as under:

2.1 That, on 10/06/2003, Jaguji Laxmanji was working in the night shift in a factory at Budasan and after completion of his duty he was riding his bicycle and going from Budasan to Rangpurda. That he was riding his bicycle on the left side of Kadi Thol Road and when he reached near Pirojpur Garnala at around 8:30 a.m., the opponent No.1 came driving jeep bearing Registration No.GJ-2K-5371 which was in the ownership of the opponent Nos.2 and 3 rashly and negligently and dashed with Jaguji Laxmanji and he was thrown down on the tar road and his bicycle was broken. That he sustained injuries and was immediately taken to Kadi Bhagyoday Hospital where he was given primary treatment and as the injuries were grievous he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad where he succumbed to his injuries. The offence was registered at Kadi Police Station being I-CR No.166 of 2003.

3. That at the time of accident deceased-Jaguji Laxmanji was 42 years old and he working in a factory at Budasan and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and was also getting overtime, PF, EL and other benefits. That he was also doing farming at Rangpurda Village and thereby earned Rs.15,000/- per annum. That the applicants have preferred the claim application for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under all available heads.

C/FA/4866/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023

4. Notices were duly served to the opponents and they appeared before the learned tribunal and the opponent No.4- insurance company filed its written statement at Exh.9 denying all the contentions of the claim petitions.

5. The learned tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties and was pleased to award an amount of Rs.1,43,000/- to be recovered from the opponents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till realization.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid award, the appellants -original claimant have approached this Court by way of this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

7. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Bharat Jani for the appellants and learned Advocate Mr.Nagesh Sood for respondent no.4. Though served, respondent nos.2 and 3 have not appeared.

8. It is mainly contended by the learned Advocate appearing for the claimants that the learned tribunal has grossly erred in deducting 2/3rd amount from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses; the learned tribunal has granted only amount of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral and other rituals; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of expectation of life; but as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., SLP (Civil) No.25590 of 2014; the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral and other expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate

C/FA/4866/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023

and each of the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal / parental consortium. Moreover, the learned tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% instead of 9% and the same is required to be enhanced as per the settled proposition of law. Learned Advocate has further contended that the claim amount be enhanced and the opponents be ordered to pay the enhanced amount with interest.

9. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.4-insurance company has submitted that the learned tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and no interference is required, but if ultimately this Court comes to the conclusion to enhance the awarded amount in favour of the claimants then interest at the rate of 6% may be granted on the enhanced amount.

10. I have gone through the R & P of the present appeal. It appears that the learned tribunal has considered the age of the deceased to be of 50 years on the date of the accident; the accident and negligence of opponent No.1 is not in dispute in the present petition and it is also not in dispute that the offending vehicle jeep bearing Registration No.GJ-2K-5371 was insured with the respondent No.4. The learned tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be at Rs.2250/- per months which is just and proper; but the learned tribunal has erred in deducting 2/3rd of the amount towards the personal expenses. Moreover, the learned tribunal has also granted the amount of Rs.3,000/- towards the funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- as loss of expectation of life.

11. In the case of the Sarla Verma (SMT) & Ors. VS. Delhi

C/FA/4866/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023

Transport Corporation & Anr (2009) 6 SCC 121 ; the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 30 has held as under:

"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six."

12. Thus, in view of the above, the learned tribunal has erred in deducting 2/3rd amount from the income of Rs.2250/- per month when in-fact 1/3rd amount is to be deducted as the deceased had a wife and two children, thus only three dependents. Moreover, as far as the multiplier aspect is concerned, the learned tribunal has applied the multiplier of 10 which is also not proper as per the settled legal proposition as held in Sarla Verma (SMT) (supra); paragraph 42 thereof reads thus:

"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of

C/FA/4866/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023

18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

13. The learned tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- towards the funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of expectation of life which is erroneous and not as per the settled proposition of law as laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (supra); paragraph 54 reads thus:

"54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain

C/FA/4866/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023

oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

14. In view of the above, the learned tribunal has grossly erred in deducting 2/3rd from the income of the deceased instead of 1/3rd; applying multiplier of 10 instead of 13 and granting Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of expectation of life when in-fact the applicants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of estate.

C/FA/4866/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2023

15. Thus, applying deduction of 1/3rd from the income of the deceased, the dependency loss would come to Rs.1,500/- and after applying multiplier of 13 (Rs.1,500 x 12 x 13), the total dependency loss is Rs.2,34,000/-. Likewise the funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-; amount of loss of consortium is also enhanced to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- and enhance the amount of loss of expectation of life to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, the total awarded amount comes to Rs.3,84,000/-; wherein Rs.1,43,000/- has already been awarded by the learned tribunal and hence a difference of Rs.2,41,000/- is ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said enhanced amount of compensation. Respondent No.4 is directed to deposit the said additional amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with the learned tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. As the matter is originally of the year 2003, the enhanced amount alongwith interest be paid to the claimants in the ratio apportioned by the learned Tribunal by RTGS/NEFT.

16. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the concerned Tribunal.

(S. V. PINTO,J) sompura