Gujarat High Court

Sangitaben Rajmabhai Alias Ramajbhai ... vs Ikbaluddin Jalaluddin Shaikh on 1 August, 2024

                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/FA/2914/2021                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024

                                                                                      undefined




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2914 of 2021


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

==========================================================

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 ?

==========================================================
     SANGITABEN RAJMABHAI ALIAS RAMAJBHAI SURYAVANSHI & ORS.
                              Versus
               IKBALUDDIN JALALUDDIN SHAIKH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                               Date : 01/08/2024

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant/s -

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2914/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024

undefined

original claimant/s - legal heirs of the deceased - Rajambhai

alias Ramajbhai Punabhai alias Punyabhai Suryavanshi, being

aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award

dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal (Aux.), Navsari at Ahwa in Motor Accident Claim

Petition No.7 of 2016, by which the Tribunal has awarded

compensation of Rs.10,29,616/- with 9% per annum interest to

the claimant/s, holding Opponents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner

and insurance company of Car bearing registration No.MH-19-

CF-0806 liable, jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 That on 08.01.2016 at about 13:45 hours, deceased

- Rajambhai alias Ramajbhai Punabhai alias Punyabhai

Suryavanshi was going on his bicycle on National Highway

No.6 - Bardoli Road on his correct side and when he

reached near village Afva. At that time, opponent No.1 -

driver came with Car bearing registration No.MH-19-CF-0806

in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed,

endangering to human life by not following the traffic rules,

dashed with the deceased from the backside. Due to that,

deceased sustained serious injuries on his head, ear and body

and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased - two widows,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2914/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024

undefined

three minor children and parents have filed claim petition

seeking compensation of Rs.25 lakhs with cost and interest

for unnatural and untimely death against the present

respondents before the Tribunal.

2.2 Notices were served to the opponents. Opponents

No.1 and 2 - driver and owner have appeared and filed their

written statement before the Tribunal. Whereas Opponent

No.3 - Insurance Company has also appeared and filed its

written statement / objections by disputing all the averments

made by the claimant in the claim petition.

2.3 The Tribunal has framed the issues. The oral as

well as documentary evidence were led by the rival parties

before the Tribunal. After considering the documentary as

well as oral evidence and submissions made at the bar, the

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding

compensation as noted above.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present

appeal is preferred by the claimant/s for enhancement.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for the

appellant/s - claimant/s has submitted that the Tribunal has

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2914/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024

undefined

committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of

compensation. He has submitted that amount of award is on

lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the

various aspects; like minimum wage prevailing at the

relevant point of time, loss of consortium and family

circumstances, etc. He has submitted that the deceased was

aged about only 29 years at the time of accident and was

doing labour work. He has submitted that at the relevant

point of time, his monthly income was Rs.7,500/- as per the

rates of minimum wages prevailing in the State and as per

the Minimum Wages Act in view of the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav versus

National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2012 ACJ

28 (SC). He has fairly submitted that the learned Tribunal

has rightly considered the prospective income, deduction of

personal expenses looking to the age of the deceased and

dependents and multiplier. He has submitted that therefore,

considering the loss of dependency, it would be calculated as

Rs.7,500/- as monthly income plus 40% prospective income

minus 1/5 as personal expenses multiplied by 12 months

and multiplied by 17 multiplier would come to Rs.17,13,600/-

total future loss, which should be awarded to the claimants

by the learned Tribunal.

3.2 He has further submitted that considering the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2914/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024

undefined

general and non-pecuniary damages, the learned Tribunal

should award Rs.18,150/- each towards loss of estate and

funeral expenses. He has also submitted that towards loss of

consortium, there are seven dependents (two widows, three

minor children and parents) and therefore, it would be

awarded Rs.48,400/- to each dependents as per the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780.

3.3 He has submitted that the compensation is

required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned

accordingly and this appeal may be allowed.

4. Per contra, Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned advocate for respondent - Insurance Company has submitted that the

impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just

and proper. The Tribunal has rightly considered the income

of the deceased, the age of the deceased, the dependency and

future aspect of income. She has submitted that under the

head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has

rightly awarded compensation. She has submitted that the

amount under the head of loss of consortium is just and

proper. She has submitted that this appeal may be dismissed

and no interference be made by this Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2914/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024

undefined

5. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives paramount

importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It

is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the

object of providing relief to the victims or their families.

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept

of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the

foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability.

Although such determination can never be arithmetically

exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court

to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the

amount claimed by the claimants.

6.1 I have considered the submissions made by the

rival parties. I have perused the record and proceedings of

the Tribunal. I have gone through the impugned judgment

and award passed by the Tribunal. From the record, it

transpires that the Tribunal has considered the age of the

deceased as 29 years and was working as a labourer and his

monthly income was Rs.7,500/- at the relevant point of time,

as per the minimum wage prevailing in the State of Gujarat,

keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Govind Yadav (supra). It is required to

be noted that on one hand, the Tribunal has observed that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2914/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024

undefined

the deceased was a labourer and on the other hand, the

Tribunal has failed to consider the minimum wage prevailing

in the State of Gujarat at that time. The Tribunal has

committed an error to that extent only, which is required to

be corrected in this appeal. Therefore, looking to the

minimum wages prevailing in the State of Gujarat at the

relevant time, it should be considered as monthly income of

the deceased. Hence, it would be Rs.7,500/- per month as

minimum wage of a labourer and by adding 40% prospective

income, as calculated by the learned Tribunal, it would come

to Rs.3,000/- and therefore, total income comes to Rs.10,500/-

per month. Since the deceased is aged about 29 years and

there are total five dependents, 1/5 would be proper to be

deducted as personal expenses and therefore, it would come

to Rs.2,100/-. Hence, the income would come to Rs.8,400/- per

month and therefore, yearly, it would come to Rs.1,00,800/-

and applying 17 multiplier as per the schedule of the Motor

Vehicles Act as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma versus Delhi

Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it would

come to Rs.17,13,600/- as future loss, which is required to be

awarded to the claimants.

6.2 Further, considering the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (supra), as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2914/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024

undefined

general and non-pecuniary damages, under the head of loss of

estate and funeral expenses, if we award Rs.18,150/- and

Rs.18,150/-, respectively, which would be the just and proper

compensation.

6.3 Further, it is required to be noted that there are

two widows to the deceased, as per the claim petition. First

widow has two children and second widow has one child and

parents are there. Therefore, one widow and her two children

and parents are treated to be the dependents qua

compensation for loss of consortium is concerned. Therefore,

total five dependents are entitled to get compensation under

the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, as per the decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India

Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780, Rs.40,000/- consortium to

each dependent and 10% rise, which comes to Rs.48,400/- as

consortium to each dependent, which total comes to

Rs.2,42,000/-, which should be awarded to the claimants.

6.4 Therefore, total compensation would be as under,

which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.

                              Particulars                               Amount (Rs.)

  Future Loss of Income                                                        17,13,600/-






                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/FA/2914/2021                             JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024

                                                                                    undefined




     Loss of Estate                                                    18,150/-

     Funeral Expenses                                                  18,150/-

     Loss of consortium                                             2,42,000/-

                                                Total...            19,91,900/-

     Less : Amount which is already awarded                       10,29,616/-

               Additional amount which is awarded                   9,62,284/-

7. Therefore, I hold that the claimant/s are entitled

to get the total amount of compensation of Rs.19,91,900/-

with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim

petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of

justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same.

The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,29,616/-, therefore,

remaining amount of Rs.9,62,284/- would be the enhanced amount of compensation payable to the claimant/s.

8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order

is passed.

8.1 The present appeal is partly allowed.

8.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

enhanced amount Rs.9,62,284/- with 9% p.a. interest from the