Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance ... vs Ravikumar Sureshchandra Agrawal on 27 September, 2023
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/647/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 647 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 648 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 649 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 ?
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANYLIMITED
Versus
RAVIKUMAR SURESHCHANDRA AGRAWAL & 6 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PARESH M DARJI(3700) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6,7
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 27/09/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All the appeals arise out of the common judgement and award,
they are being disposed of by this common judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/647/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
2. On 16.11.1998, there was an accident between Maruti and truck,
as a result of which occupier of the Maruti car, namely, Sudhaben
and Pushpaben lost their lives and the others, namely, Mafatbhai
Patel and Madhuben Patel sustained grievous injuries resulting
into permanent partial disablement.
3. A Claim Petition No.844 of 1999, was being filed by the legal
heirs of deceased Sudhaben and it was filed by widower and two
sons of the deceased, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
joining the driver of both the vehicles and their insurance
companies. The Claim Tribunal, has awarded Rs.3,35,000/-
towards the total amount of compensation with interest at the rate
of 9%.
4. A Claim Petition No.845 of 1999, was being filed by the legal
heirs of deceased Sudhaben and it was filed by widower and two
sons of the deceased, claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-
joining the driver of the involved truck, its owner and insurance
company. The Claim Tribunal, has awarded Rs.6,73,000/-
towards the total amount of compensation with interest at the rate
of 9%.
5. A Claim Petition No.846 of 1999, was being filed by the injured
Mafatbhai, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- joining the
drivers, owners and insurance companies of both the vehicles.
The Claim Tribunal, has awarded Rs.3,12,000/- towards the total
amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 9%.
6. The United India Insurance Company, with whom the truck was
insured has challenged the judgement and award passed in all the
claim petitions, mainly on the ground that the Claim Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/647/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
erred in awarding compensation to the non-dependant sons as
during the proceedings of the claim petition, the husband of both
the deceased namely Pushpaben and Sudhaben died in a natural
way and, therefore, the surviving legal heirs, who are major sons,
having their own independent income and they were not
dependent on the income of the deceased. The Tribunal, while
awarding the amount overlooked the said aspect of dependency
and awarded the amount which requires interference by this
Court.
7. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati and
Mr.P.M.Darji for the respective parties.
8. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, assailing the common judgement and
award has submitted that after filing the claim petitions by the
legal heirs of deceased Sudhaben and Pushpaben, the respective
husband of deceased died in a natural way during the pendency of
proceedings and amendment to this effect was also made and
their names deleted as a party. The Tribunal failed to appreciate
that except the husband, no one is dependent on the income of the
deceased as the other dependents are majors and they have their
own independent income and are not entitled for dependency
loss. Despite of this, the Tribunal, arbitrarily awarded the amount
of compensation, which requires modification in accordance with
law.
9. On the other hand Mr.Darji, learned counsel appearing for the
original claimants has submitted that after filing the claim
petition, if the victim or legal representative died, the claimants,
who are representing the deceased legal representative, are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/647/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
entitled to the amount awarded. In such circumstances, Mr. Darji
would urge that, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of
compensation by interpreting the relevant provisions of the Hindu
Succession Act.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the
issue arise for determination is as to whether the judgement and
award of the Tribunal needs any interference.
11. The appeal is filed on a very limited ground, that during the
pendency, the dependent husband has expired and the remaining
legal heirs, who are having an independent income are not
entitled for the amount of dependency loss.
12. In the facts of the present case, two women, namely, Sudhaben
and Pushpaben lost their lives in the road accident. The husband
of Puspaben,namely, Maftatbhai and husband of Sudhaben,
namely, Ishwarbhai Naranbhai, died during the pendency of the
claim petition. If the claim petition disposed of before the
deceased could have died, the legal heirs namely major sons
would be entitled for the amount, as they are representing the
estate of the deceased. In such circumstances, the plea raised that
after the death of the husbands of both the deceased, the legal
heirs who are having independent income, are not entitled for the
dependency loss, having no any merits and not tenable in the eye
of law.
13. For the reasons recorded, the issue of law, as raised hereinabove,
is not tenable in eye of law and this Court does not find any
perversity in the common impugned judgement and award and
accordingly, the appeals are dismissed being devoid of any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/647/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2023
undefined
merits. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
SUDHIR
