Gujarat High Court

Mandrikaben Mukundbhai Mehta vs Vaghela Dharmendrasinh Mahipatsinh on 2 August, 2024

                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/FA/17/2012                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024

                                                                                   undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 17 of 2012


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 ?

==========================================================
               MANDRIKABEN MUKUNDBHAI MEHTA & ORS.
                             Versus
            VAGHELA DHARMENDRASINH MAHIPATSINH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                            Date : 02/08/2024

                           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/17/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

original claimant/s - legal heirs of the deceased -

Mukundbhai Arvindbhai Mehta, being aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.05.2011

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),

Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.643 of 2005,

by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.3,61,000/- with 7.5% per annum interest to the claimant/s,

holding Opponents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurance

company of Truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-5496 liable,

jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 That on 23.03.2005 at about 10:00 p.m., deceased

- Mukundbhai Arvindbhai Mehta, along with his friend

Atulbhai Shroff, was returning from walking on Sardar

Bridge on his TVS Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-5-

DH-7999 in moderate speed and on correct side of the road.

The deceased was a pillion rider. At that time, the offending

Truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-5496 came in rash and

negligent manner and in excessive speed came from Athwa

Gate and dashed the motorcycle from back side. Due to that,

deceased and his friend, both fallen down from the

motorcycle, where the deceased sustained serious injuries i.e.

on head. Therefore, the deceased was immediately shifted to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/17/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

the Pramukhswami Hospital by his said friends - Atulbhai.

Ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore,

the legal heirs of the deceased - widow and two children

have filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.12 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 chosen not to appear

and contest the claim petition before the Tribunal. Opponent

No.3 - Insurance Company has appeared and has 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/17/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the appellant/s -

claimant/s has submitted that the Tribunal has 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 prospective income of the deceased, negligence, liability

and family circumstances, etc. He has submitted that the

deceased was aged about only 44 years at the time of

accident and was working as a Partner in Shrinathji Dychem

and Standard Dychem & Chemicals and he was appointed as

Production and quality Control Manager by Shah Jari Palace.

He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, his

monthly income was Rs.7,000/-. He has submitted that the

Tribunal has not considered the prospective income of the

deceased. He has fairly submitted that the learned Tribunal

has rightly considered the deduction of personal expenses

looking to the age of the deceased and multiplier. He has

submitted that therefore, considering the loss of dependency,

it would be calculated as Rs.7,000/- as monthly income plus

25% prospective income minus 1/3 personal expenses

multiplied by 12 months and multiplied by 14 multiplier for

calculation of 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/17/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

general and non-pecuniary damages, the learned Tribunal

should award Rs18,000/- each towards loss of estate and

funeral expenses. He has also submitted that towards loss of

consortium, there are three dependents and therefore, it

would be awarded Rs.1,44,000/- should be awarded 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 further submitted that the Tribunal has

awarded only 7.5% rate of interest upon the amount of

compensation, which should be 9% rate of interest keeping in

mind the observations made by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of United India Insurance Company

Limited versus Bharti Kanaiyalal Chauhan reported in 2007

(2) GLR 1464.

3.4 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. Lilu K. Bhaya, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/17/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

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

future aspect of income. He has submitted that under the

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

rightly awarded compensation. He has submitted that the

amount under the head of loss of consortium is just and

proper. He has submitted that this appeal may be dismissed

and no interference be made by this Court.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/17/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

transpires that the deceased was aged about 44 years and

was working as was working as a Partner in Shrinathji

Dychem and Standard Dychem & Chemicals and he was

appointed as Production and quality Control Manager by

Shah Jari Palace and his income was Rs.50,000/- per annum

at the relevant point of time, which should be just and

proper keeping in the mind the deposition of the widow.

Therefore, it should be considered as yearly income of the

deceased. Hence, it would come to Rs.50,000/- per year and

by adding 25% prospective income, as calculated by the

learned Tribunal, it would come to Rs.12,500/- and therefore,

total income comes to Rs.62,500/- per year. Since the

deceased is aged about 44 years, 1/3 would be proper to be

deducted as personal expenses and therefore, it would come

to Rs.20,833/-. Hence, the income would come to Rs.41,667/-

per year and applying 14 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.5,83,338/- as future loss, which is required to be

awarded to the claimants.

6.2 At this stage, the observations made by the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharti Kanaiyalal

Chauhan (supra) reported in 2007 (2) GLR 1464 is required

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/17/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

to be kept in mind. The Tribunal has awarded 7.5% rate of

interest upon the amount of compensation, which should be

9% rate of interest considering the rates of interest prevailing

at that time and considering the peculiar facts of the present

case.

6.3 Further, considering the ratio laid down by the

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

6.4 Further, there are three dependents to the

deceased. 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.1,45,200/-, which should be awarded

to the claimants.

6.5 Therefore, total compensation would be as under,

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








                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/FA/17/2012                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024

                                                                                     undefined




                        Particulars                          Amount (Rs.)

     Future Loss of Income                                           5,83,338/-

     Loss of Estate                                                     18,150/-

     Funeral Expenses                                                   18,150/-

     Loss of consortium                                              1,45,200/-

                                                 Total...              7,64,838/-

     Less : Amount which is already awarded                          3,61,000/-

               Additional amount which is awarded                    4,03,338/-

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

to get the total amount of compensation of Rs.7,64,838/- 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.3,61,000/-, therefore, remaining

amount of Rs.4,03,338/- 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION