Gujarat High Court
Sumatba Vikramsinh Gohil vs Harpalsinh Mahipatsinh Gohil on 6 March, 2023
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/FA/2061/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2061 of 2020
==========================================================
SUMATBA VIKRAMSINH GOHIL
Versus
HARPALSINH MAHIPATSINH GOHIL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURANG K CHAUHAN(9858) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 06/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
[1] This is an appeal preferred by the
appellants-claimants challenging the judgment and
award dated 02.03.2020 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.595 of 2013.
[2] According to the claimants, on 08.10.2013,
at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased was going from his
house to his agricultural field by driving his Rajdoot
Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-L-2673 on the
correct side of the road in moderate speed. He was
on way from Malvan near Doniya Nera bridge, at
C/FA/2061/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023
that time, opponent no.1 came driving his motorcycle
bearing registration No. GJ-4 - BN-1676 in a rash
and negligent manner, and dashed with the
motorcycle of the deceased and he received fatal
injuries and succumbed to death. The learned
Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred due
to the sole negligence of the driver of the motorcycle
bearing registration No.GJ-4 - BN-1676 and no
challenge has been given to the said observation.
[3] Mr.G.K.Chauhan, learned advocate for the
appellants submitted that the deceased was holding
agricultural land, and 7/12 extract was produced of
revenue record at Exh.65 to prove the ownership.
The learned Tribunal ought to have considered this
fact and should have appreciated the evidence that
he was taking crops from the land. Advocate
Mr.Chauhan submitted that at least, the
compensation should have been granted for the
managerial skill of the deceased for taking the
agricultural crops from his land.
C/FA/2061/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023
[4] Countering the arguments, Mr.Y.K.Gadhia,
learned advocate for opponent No.3 stated that, the
deceased could have been considered as a labourer,
who was working in the agricultural land, and no
special efforts would be required for managing the
land, and it is the only agriculture labour work,
which has to be considered. The learned Tribunal
has considered the income of deceased for supervisory
loss at the rate of Rs.3,000/-.
[5] Considering the work of the deceased in the
level of any labourer working on the agricultural
land, and keeping in mind the minimum wages
schedule on the date of accident i.e. on 08.10.2013,
this Court considers that the amount of Rs.5,750/-
would be just and reasonable to be assessed as
monthly income of the deceased.
5.1 The age of the deceased at the time of
accident was 44 years, following the propositions laid
down in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017)
C/FA/2061/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023
16 SCC 680, 25% rise in income is to be considered
and therefore, monthly income would come to
Rs.7,187.50 (Rs.5,750/- + 25%).
5.2 The annual income comes to Rs.86,250/-.
Considering the dependency as six in number, ¼ is
to be deducted towards personal expenses of the
deceased. Hence, the income would be Rs.64,687/-
(Rs.86,250/- - Rs.21,563/-).
5.3 Applying the multiplier of 14, as the
deceased was in age group of 41-45, the total
dependency loss would be Rs.9,05,618/-.
[6] The deceased left behind him four minors, one
widow and one aged mother. As per the observations
made in the case of Magma General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.,
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, each claimant would be
entitled for consortium money of Rs.40,000/- per head.
Thus, under the head of loss of consortium, amount
comes to Rs.2,40,000/-.
C/FA/2061/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023
6.1 The medical bills have been proved at
Exh.69, which comes to Rs.2,84,435/-. Loss to estate
and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- is to be
considered under each head.
[7] The Tribunal has granted the compensation
to the appellants - claimants under the different
heads as under:-
Future loss of dependency Rs.4,72,500/-
Medical Bills Rs.2,84,435/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/-
Total compensation Rs.8,26,935/-
[8] Now, the the appellants - claimants would
be entitled to get the compensation as follows:
Sr. Head Compensation
No. Amount in Rs.
1 Future loss of dependency Rs.9,05,618/-
C/FA/2061/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023
2. Loss of consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
3. Medical Bills Rs.2,84,435/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
5. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total: Rs.14,60,063/-
[9] The Tribunal has granted total
compensation of Rs.8,26,935/- to the appellants -
claimants. Thus, in addition thereto, now the
appellants would be entitled to get additional amount
of Rs.6,33,128/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization. The Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with
interest as above within a period of Two months
from the receipt of copy of this judgment and order.
Upon such deposit, it will be open to the appellants
to approach the Tribunal for appropriate orders for
withdrawal.
[10] In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award
C/FA/2061/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2023
dated 02.03.2020 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.595 of 2013, is
accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent. The
Record & Proceedings, if received, be sent back to
the concerned Court.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Manoj
