Gujarat High Court
Khatunben Wd/O Sulemanbhai ... vs Rajusing Jivsing Chauhan on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/581/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 581 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
KHATUNBEN WD/O SULEMANBHAI KARIMBHAI SUTHAR & 5 other(s)
Versus
RAJUSING JIVSING CHAUHAN & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 26/09/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Claim Tribunal in the case of motor accident, the original
claimants being legal heirs of the deceased have preferred the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/581/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
2. Deceased Sulaman Suthar at the age of 35, died in a road accident
leaving behind the wife, daughter and minor sons. On 03.07.2005,
when he was on duty as a conductor with the vehicle involved, the
front while of the truck, ran over him, as the driver of the truck did
not notice the presence of the deceased who was giving the signal
to the driver. The appellants had filed a Claim Petition No.961 of
2005 before the Claim Tribunal, Modasa at Aravalli. The Tribunal,
after considering the monthly income of Rs.2,100/- and deducting
1/3rd, awarded the sum of Rs.2,52,000/- towards the dependency
loss and under the head of conventional amount, Rs.15,000/- was
being awarded.
3. Being aggrieved with the judgement and award dated 14.07.2009
the appellants, by way of this appeal, seek enhancement of
compensation.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. R.K.Mansuri and
Mr.H.G.Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
5. Mr. Mansuri,learned counsel, has submitted that the judgement and
decree is being passed contrary to the settled principles of just
compensation and, therefore, it requires modification in the form of
enhancement by this Court.
6. Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company supported the findings recorded on the issue of income
and further submitted that there is no evidence of income before
the Tribunal and in that circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly
determined the monthly income of the deceased, which does not
require interference.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/581/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, and on
perusal of the case records, the issue arise for the consideration of
this Court is as to whether appellants have made out a case for
enhancement in the amount of compensation.
8. In the facts of the present case, the accident, the involvement of the
vehicle, the age of the deceased and number of legal heirs are not
in dispute. The only issue raised is whether the monthly income
determined by the Tribunal is proper or not. It further appears that
the learned Tribunal ignored awarding the amount of future
prospects. The appellants claimed the amount of compensation on
the basis of monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3000/-.
Considering the rate of minimum wages prevalent in the year 2005,
the Tribunal overlooked the said aspects while determining the
monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal ought to have
considered monthly income of Rs.2700/- per month and to that
extent, the amount is required to be modified.
9. In view of the Constitution Bench judgement (Pranay Sethi), the
amount of compensation is recomputed and the total compensation
payable to claimants is computed below:
Dependency Loss: 5,10,300/-= (2700+1080=3780-
1/4th=2835x12)=34020x15)
Conventional amount = 2,30,000/-
Total = 7,40,300/-
10. In view of the above the appellants, are entitled to get the enhanced
amount of compensation Rs.4,73,300/-(7,40,300-2,67,000-).
11. For the reasons recorded the present appeal is allowed in part. The
Insurance Company respondent is directed to pay the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/581/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
enhanced amount with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of
claim petition. Decree be drawn accordingly.
12. The Claim Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount without
making further investment in the FDR.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
SUDHIR
