Gujarat High Court
Padmakant Rasiklal Shah Decd. ... vs Amarnath Rajdevrai Brahmin on 1 September, 2023
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5277/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5277 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PADMAKANT RASIKLAL SHAH DECD. THRO'KAILASHBEN PADMAKANT
SHAH & 3 other(s)
Versus
AMARNATH RAJDEVRAI BRAHMIN & 5 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR LALJI R MOKARIA(3085) for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/09/2023
Page 1 of 7
Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:41:13 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5277/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2023
undefined
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and
award dated 20.04.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in Claim Petition No.1081/2001, the
appellant- original claimant has preferred this appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as
'Act'). The aforesaid Claim Petition was heard along with the
Claim Petition Nos.1082/2001, 1083/2001, 1084/2001,
1085/2001 by the Tribunal and common judgment and award is
passed.
2. Following facts emerge from the record are as under:
2.1 The accident took place on 25 th May, 2001 at around 3.30
a.m. It is the case of the appellant - original claimant that on that
day, 6 to 7 passengers traveling in a Sumo Car No.GJ 7H 5197
including the present claimants and deceased Padmakantbhai
Rasiklal Shah towards the Shirdi for religious purpose, driven by
opponent No.4. While reaching at Hotel Chorasiya on Valsad
national highway No.8, at the outskirt of village: Andhel, at about 3
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5277/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2023
undefined
30 a.m., the truck being No.GJ - 15- U- 6594 driven by opposite
No.1, came from the opposite directions in rash and negligent
manner, went on a wrong side and dashed with the car resulting
the death of the Padmakantbhai Rasiklal Shah and injury to the
original claimants.
2,2 It is the case of the appellant - original claimant that they are
the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased
Padmakantbhai Rasiklal Shah who was aged 54 years and serving
with the IPCL company later on purchased by the Reliance
Industries and his retirement date was due on 31 st July, 2008. As
per the case of the original claimant - appellant that he was
serving as a Senior System Officer and his basic pay scale of
Rs.16,250/- per month and getting 30% Dearness Allowance as
well as other perks and his monthly salary comes to Rs.21,125/-.
As his salary is of Rs.21,125/-, therefore, the Claim Petition was
filed for the compensation of Rs.53,50,000/- before the learned
MACP (Aux.) Tribunal, Vadodara. Considering the evidence and
material placed before the learned Tribunal, the amount of
Rs.15,46,000/- was awarded towards the compensation with 7.5%
rate of interest from the date of application till realization with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5277/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2023
undefined
proportionate cost and opponents are jointly and severally liable to
pay the same to the claimants. The same is the subject matter of
challenge.
3. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant, original
claimant.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Nachiket D.Mehta, for Mr.Satyam M.
Chhaya, learned advocate for the appellant - original claimant
submitted that though the learned Tribunal has considered the
income of Rs. 21,125/- as a monthly income, however, the
multiplication, which is required as per the case of Sarla Verma &
Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 is
not considered.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta further submitted that as per the
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680
the general damages i.e. consortium of Rs.40,000/-, loss of estate
Rs.15,000/- and Funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- is to be
considered, the learned Tribunal had committed error in not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5277/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2023
undefined
awarding the same.
6. Limiting the arguments with regard to the aforesaid aspect,
the learned advocate for the appellant, original claimant submitted
to enhance the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Maulk Shelat for the
Insurance Company submitted that with the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) is to be
considered then 15% towards this prospective income will have to
be calculated and the rate of interest, which is awarded at 7.5%
p.a., which is higher on side is required to be reduced to the 6%
p.a.
8. Learned advocate, Mr.Shelat, for the Insurance Company
does not dispute with regard to the income, which is assessed by
the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation.
9. Considering the oral as well as documentary evidence
produced by the claimant before the Tribunal, it transpires that
deceased was working as a Senior Official in IPCL Company and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5277/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2023
undefined
drawing the basic salary of Rs.16,250/- plus dearness allowance.
As both the parties, are not in a position to dispute the salary,
which was considered by the learned Tribunal for awarding the
compensation, this Court deems it fit to hold the same as a
monthly income of the deceased. Considering the income i.e.
Rs.21,125/-, the 15% rise is to be given for calculating the
prospective income that would come Rs.24, 293/- as per the
Pranay Sethi (Supra) from which, the 1/3rd amount towards the
personal expenses is to be deducted of the deceased that would
come to Rs.16,195/- per month. For calculating the yearly income
that is to be multiplied and come around Rs.1,94,341/-. Per
annum. As the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of the
accident, as per the case of Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra) the said
income is to be multiplied with 11 that would come Rs.21,37,751/-
which can be considered towards the future loss. As per the
judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the general damages towards
the consortium Rs.50,000/-, loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and towards
the funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- is to be added in the aforesaid
figure, which comes to RS.21,37,751/-, which is required to be
awarded as a compensation to the appellant - original claimant.
As the learned Tribunal had already awarded Rs.15,46,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5277/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2023
undefined
towards the compensation, therefore, the said amount is required
to be deducted from the aforesaid amount, which comes to
Rs.6,43,751/-. As the current rate of interest is 6%, which is not
disputed by both of advocates, the same is required to be granted
to the present applicant.
10. Resultantly, the claimants are entitled for Rs.6,43,751/- as
enhanced compensation with 6% interest from the date of
application till realization for which opponents are jointly and
severally liable to pay and opponents are directed to deposit within
a period of 8 (Eight) weeks from the date of receipt of the order
before the learned trial Court, which may be disbursed in favour of
the claimant after due verification by the learned Tribunal.
11. In view of above, this First Appeal is partly allowed in
aforesaid terms. R & P is sent back to learned Tribunal forthwith.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ASHISH M. GADHIYA
