Gujarat High Court
Brijrajsinh Bhagriathsinh Jadeja vs Pravinsinh Bhavansinh Rathod on 21 February, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3786/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3786 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
================================================================
BRIJRAJSINH BHAGRIATHSINH JADEJABRIJRAJSINH BHAGRIATHSINH
JADEJA & ORS.
Versus
PRAVINSINH BHAVANSINH RATHOD & ORS.PRAVINSINH BHAVANSINH
RATHOD
================================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 21/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants-claimants have
challenged the judgment and award dated 23.11.2017
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3786/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxi.), Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No.1395 of 2004 praying
for enhancement in the compensation amount.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put
succinctly as under :-
On 04.09.2002, at around 18.45 hours, the deceased
- Bhagirathsinh Savajbha Jadeja was riding as a
pillion rider on Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing
Registration No.GJ-12-M-8291 and were heading
towards Gandhidham Adipur Highway. At that time,
the respondent No.1 came driving the State Transport
Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18-V-7197 in full
speed and in a rash and negligent manner. It is
alleged that near the curve of Saint Xavier's School,
the State Transport Bus collided with the Hero Honda
Motor Cycle because of which the deceased suffered
grievous injuries and expired on the spot.
3. Learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants Mr.
Nishit A. Bhalodi submitted that the deceased was a
Police Constable in the SRP and was aged about 31
years at the time of accident. The G.P.F. Slip of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3786/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
year 1999 was produced on record at Exhibit 40 and
the last pay Slip was produced at Exhibit 46 which
disclosed the gross salary of Rs.4,938/- per month.
The learned Tribunal has believed the same.
However, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal
had failed to follow the principle as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported
in 2017 16 SCC 680. It is further submitted that
taking into consideration the age of the deceased as
well as his permanent job, 50% prospective rise in
income was required to be considered and after one-
third deduction for personal expenses, the multiplier
of 16 which has been considered by the learned
Tribunal would become applicable to grant the
dependency loss.
4. It is further submitted that the widow lost her
husband and the children have lost their father and
hence, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in (2018) 18
SCC 130, consortium loss was required to be granted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3786/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the
respondent No.2 - Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, has submitted
that the claimants are required to place on record for
claiming the prospective rise, the evidence to show
that during the course of the deceased's job, he
would have become entitled for increment. Therefore,
the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just
and proper.
6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties,
perused the records of the case. The grounds which
are raised in the present Appeal are to the effect that
no prospective rise in income has been considered
and consortium loss has not been provided to the
claimants.
7. The income of the deceased as a police constable was
proved to be Rs.4,938/- per month, in accordance to
the principle laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi
and Others (supra), the deceased being in a
permanent job and considering the age of the
deceased as 31 years, 50% prospective rise in income
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3786/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
was required to be assessed. Hence, considering the
decision in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others
(supra), the income of the deceased Police Constable
would come of Rs.7,407/- per month (Rs.4,938/- +
50% of Rs.4,938/- is Rs.2,469/-, i.e. Rs.4,938/- +
Rs.2,469/-).
8. Deducting Rs.2,469/- as personal expenses as one-
third deduction, the monthly dependency would come
to Rs.4,938/- and applying the multiplier of 16, the
future dependency loss would come to Rs.9,48,096/-
(Rs.4,938/- x 12 x 16).
9. In this case, the claimants are two children and
widow and thus, following the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, each claimant would
be entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, in
total, an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3
claimants) is granted under the head of consortium
loss.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3786/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
10. Following the ratio as laid down in the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi and Others (supra), an amount of Rs.15,000/-
each is granted under the heads of Loss of Estate and
Funeral Expenses.
11. Thus, the computation can be made as under :-
Details Amount (Rs.)
Dependency Loss 9,48,096/-
Consortium Loss 1,20,000/-
Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
TOTAL 10,98,096/-
12. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.6,97,064/- with rate of interest @ 9% per annum,
which the respondent/s are liable to deposit, with the
enhanced amount as Rs.4,01,032/- (Rs.10,98,096/-
minus Rs.6,97,064/-). In the result, the present
respondent/s are directed to deposit the amount
within a period of EIGHT (8) WEEKS from the date
of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It is
further directed that the claimants would be entitled
to receive the enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3786/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
annum from the date of the application and the
disbursement of the amount be made as per the
judgment and award of the learned Tribunal.
13. After deposit of the above / enhanced amount,
it is directed that the TOTAL compensation amount
be paid to the appellants - claimants, by Account
Payee Cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after carrying the
necessary procedures for verification of their
identities.
14. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and
the judgment and award dated 23.11.2017 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.),
Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No.1395 of 2004 stands modified
to the above extent. Record and proceedings, if
any, be sent back to the concerned Court / Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
