Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Ramjansha Valisha Diwan on 8 September, 2023
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4521/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4521 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4522 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
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 ?
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
Versus
RAMJANSHA VALISHA DIWAN & 6 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR LALJI R MOKARIA(3085) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6,7
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 08/09/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgement and award,
they are being disposed of by this common judgement and award.
2. The United India Insurance Company, appellants in both the cases,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4521/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023
undefined
filed the aforesaid appeals assailing the common judgement and award
dated 07.12.2007 passed in group of MACP (MACP no.1087 and 1088
of 1987), whereby the MACP (Aux.), Vadodara awarded
Rs.12,68,000/- and Rs.6,47,000/- with interest. Being aggrieved with
the amount awarded to the legal heirs of deceased, the present
appeals have been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. In the alleged accident, husband and wife namely Minesh and Kiran
have lost their lives. On the day of the accident dated 17.04.1997,
being a passenger of the auto-rickshaw, which was collided with the
S.T.Bus, sustained a fatal injuries and succumbed to their injuries. The
parents and minor son had preferred claim petitions before the
Vadodara Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on
record, had believed the income of deceased Minesh monthly as
Rs.6000/- and applied multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.12,68,000/-,
whereas in the case of wife of the deceased of Kiran, after considering
Rs.3000/- as income the total amount Rs.6,47,000/- being awarded in
favour of respondents claimants.
4. Being dissatisfied with the amount awarded in both the claim petitions,
the Insurance Company appellants have preferred the appeals, mainly
on the ground that the amount awarded in both the cases is on a
higher side.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, appearing
for and on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Lalji Mokaria appearing for
the original claimants.
6. Mr. Nanavati, appearing for the Insurance Company, has submitted
that before the Tribunal, the claimants have not adduced the evidence
on income, despite of this, the Tribunal, based on the statement made
on oath, accepted the income of deceased and, therefore, the findings
recorded on income are without any evidence on record and without
application of mind, arbitrarily, the Tribunal has determined the income
which is contrary to the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4521/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023
undefined
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the issue
arise for determination is whether the judgement and award under
challenge needs any interference.
8. This Court is of the considered view that challenge in these appeals is
the amount of quantum determined by the Tribunal. Mr.Minesh and his
wife, died in the said road accident leaving behind and parents and
minor son. Deceased aged about 24 years, was doing his business as
a vegetable seller and earning Rs.6000/- per month, whereas his wife
Kiran, aged about 20 years, claimed to be a master in sewing work and
was earning Rs.3000/- per month. Learned Tribunal after considering
the material on record, accepted the income as stated by the
claimants. In this background of facts, the findings recorded by the
Tribunal with respect to the income cannot be arbitrary or perverse.
The Tribunal has properly interpreted the term "just and reasonable"
while determining the income of both the deceased. For the sake of
argument if the income determined is accepted on higher side on both
the cases then multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is little bit on lower
side.
9. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the claim Tribunal
shall make an award to determine the amount of compensation which
appears to be just. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva
Shetty, 2003 (7) SCC 97, the Supreme Court held as under:
"The Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section
168 is required to make an award determining the amount of
compensation which to it appears to be 'just'. It has to be borne in
mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be
weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a
deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum
of damages fixed should be in accordance to the injury. An injury
may bring about many consequences like loss of earning
capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential
losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for the mental and
physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he
or she cannot enjoy life which has been curtailed because of
physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4521/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2023
undefined
But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the
compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim.
Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be
"just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the
same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a
duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of
compensation, which should be just. What would be "just"
compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule
applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a
limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular
facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special
features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing
compensation has to be considered in the background of "just"
compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use
of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide
discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be
rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome
of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just"
denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-
arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just."
10. In light of the settled principle of law and considering the recent
Constitutional Bench Judgement National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs.Pranay Sethi (2017) ACJ 2700(SC), the award passed in
both the cases are just, reasonable and equitable and the contention
raised by the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
Consequently. Both the appeals are dismissed, being devoid of any
merits, the award passed in both the cases is upheld. Decree be
drawn accordingly.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
SUDHIR
