Gujarat High Court
Kailashben Ganpatbhai Parmar vs Vanrajsinh Chhatrasinh Parmar on 3 January, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2058/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2058 of 2022
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 ?
================================================================
KAILASHBEN GANPATBHAI PARMAR
Versus
VANRAJSINH CHHATRASINH PARMAR
================================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 03/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants-claimants have
challenged the judgment and award dated 02.06.2020
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2058/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
(Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.134 of 2014
primarily on the ground that the income has not been
assessed in accordance to the date of accident, i.e.
29.09.2013 with the consumer price living index and
inflation rate, and further consortium loss has not
been granted to the claimants.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put
succinctly as under :-
On 29.09.2013, the deceased - Ganpatbhai
Punambhai Parmar was travelling in a Rickshaw
bearing Registration No.GJ.7-TT-857. It is alleged
that the above Rickshaw was being driven by the
respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and
with excessive speed. When they reached near the
place of accident, at that point of time, another
Truck which was coming from the opposite direction,
dashed with the Rickshaw, as a result of which the
accident occurred. The deceased suffered serious
injuries on various parts of his body and ultimately
succumbed to these injuries.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2058/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
3. The learned Tribunal while considering the negligence
aspect answered the Issue No.1 in affirmative and
considered 60% negligence of the truck driver and
40% of the rickshaw driver, and the case being of
composite negligence, had ordered to recover jointly
and severally the awarded amount from the
respondents, i.e. the rickshaw driver and the
Insurance Company of the rickshaw.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants Mr.
Nishit A. Bhalodi submitted that the deceased
travelling in rickshaw, belonged to the labour class
and it was urged before the learned Tribunal that the
deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It is
further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
considered the monthly income of the deceased @
Rs.3,500/-; however, there was no documentary
evidence to prove the earnings from the labour work
hence, learned Advocate Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi
submitted that in absence of any such documents,
considering the date of accident, the learned Tribunal
ought to have taken assistance of the Minimum
Wages Schedule and should have assessed the
monthly income accordingly, to grant compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2058/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
5. It is further submitted that the death of the deceased
- Ganpatbhai Punambhai Parmar had affected two
minors, widow and the aged mother. The consortium
loss was required to be granted 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 to all the
claimants, instead the learned Tribunal has granted
the consortium loss only to the widow.
6. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the
respondent - Insurance Company Mr. Rathin Raval
submitted that the income which has been assessed
by the learned Tribunal is in accordance to the
nature of the work, which has been pleaded and the
claimants could not bring/prove the documentary
evidence to support the earning of the deceased. It
is further submitted that the amount assessed @
Rs.3,500/- per month would be just and 40%
prospective rise in income has been considered by the
learned Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2058/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
7. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective
parties, perused the records of the case. The
claimants had urged before the learned Tribunal that
the deceased was a labourer and was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month, while the learned Tribunal
considering the year of the accident, the nature of
work of the deceased assumed the monthly income of
the deceased @ Rs.3,500/- per month. It is required
to be noted that the Labour and Employment
Department vide notification/s time to time publishes
the minimum wages of skilled, semi-skilled and
unskilled employment and the Schedule is prepared in
daily rates including the dearness allowance.
Placing reliance on the Schedule and considering the
date/year of accident, i.e. 29.09.2013, the deceased
would be entitled for a wage of Rs.5,300/- per
month.
8. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged
32 years. Hence, in accordance to the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in 2017 16 SCC 680, the deceased
would be entitled for 40% rise in the prospective
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2058/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
income. Hence, his monthly income can be
considered as Rs.7,420/- per month (Rs.5,300/- + 40%
of Rs.5,300/-).
9. Considering the dependants, ¼ amount would be
required to be deducted as personal expenses, hence,
the monthly dependancy would be Rs.5,565/-
(Rs.7,420/- minus Rs.1,855/-).
10. Applying the multiplier of 16, the future
dependancy loss would be Rs.10,68,480/- (Rs.5,565/-
x 12 months x 16 multiplier).
11. Considering 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, the consortium amount is to be
granted to the widow, children and aged mother.
Hence the amount would be Rs.1,20,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 3 claimants).
12. In the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15000/- each is to be
granted under the heads of Loss to Estate and Funeral
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2058/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
Expenses.
13. Thus, the computation can be made as under :-
Details Amount (Rs.)
Dependency Loss 10,68,480/-
Consortium Loss 1,20,000/-
Loss to Estate 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
TOTAL 12,18,480/-
14. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.7,75,600/- with rate of interest @ 9% per annum,
which the respondent/s are liable to deposit, with the
enhanced amount as Rs.4,42,880/- (Rs.12,18,480/-
minus Rs.7,75,600/-). 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
annum from the date of the application.
15. As per the record, it appears that the minor
claimant/s No.2 and 3 have attained majority. In the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2058/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2024
undefined
result, all the appellants-claimants be paid 70% of the
compensation amount, after carrying the necessary
procedures for verification of their identities. The
remaining 30% be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt
(FDR) for a period of two years and on expiry of the
period of two years, the said amount with the
interest earned thereon be given to the claimant/s,
after following the necessary procedures, without any
further reference to the Court. If at all, any
amount is apportioned as the share of the claimant
No.4 - deceased Rukhiben Punambhai Parmar, it is
directed that such amount be paid to the claimant
No.1 - Kailasben Ganpatbhai Parmar.
16. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and
the judgment and award dated 02.06.2020 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.134 of 2014 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
