Gujarat High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd. ... vs Sanjeevkumar Sukhdevsinh on 30 January, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/360/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 360 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 360 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 360 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 371 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 371 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 371 of 2024
================================================================
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. AHMADABAD
Versus
SANJEEVKUMAR SUKHDEVSINH
================================================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
SHRIKAR H BHATT(2573) for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 30/01/2024
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant - Insurance
Company, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati who submitted that it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/360/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
is very strange to know that the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Court No.18, City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad has granted a lumpsum
amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- in
M.A.C.P. No.111 of 2015 and M.A.C.P. No.112 of
2015 respectively vide common judgment dated
10.10.2023, without bifurcating the amount under
various heads and even without considering the
dependency loss by assessing the income of the
deceased at the time of the death. It is further
submitted that in M.A.C.P. No.111 of 2015, certified
copies of Income Tax returns were produced but
there has been no appreciation of evidence to
consider the monthly income. It is also submitted
that deductions were required to be made for the
personal expenses of the deceased while no such
exercise has been conducted by the learned Tribunal
and therefore, the Insurance Company is not even in
a position to know as to what amount has been
granted under various heads. It is also submitted
that the lumpsum amount cannot be awarded by the
learned Tribunal without considering the real liability
of the payment/s in context of various judgments of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/360/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
the Hon'ble Apex Court.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati has further
submitted that the issue of negligence has also not
been rightly considered and the observations made by
the learned Tribunal are contrary to the evidence on
record.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati has referred
to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in the case of Jitender Kumar Alias Jitender Singh v.
State of Bihar reported in (2019) 6 SCC 396,
Dharampal v. UPSRTC reported in (2008) 2 SCC 208
and the decision of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India v.
K.S. Lakshmi Kumar reported in 2001 ACJ 134, to
submit that every Court is obliged to assign reasons
for the final conclusion and detail reasoning is the
soul of the judgment, by following the principle of
natural justice and, it is the right of the litigant to
know the reasons for the decisions.
4. Qua First Appeal No.360 of 2024, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the Caveator Mr. Srikhar H.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/360/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
Bhatt has submitted that the issue of negligence has
been dealt with and such observations cannot be
upset even in cases where a plea is made for
remanding the matter/s and has therefore, urged for
dismissing the Appeal.
5. Heard the submissions canvassed and perused the
records of the case. On going through the impugned
common judgment passed in M.A.C.P. No.111 of 2015
and 112 of 2015, it can be easily seen that the
learned Tribunal has granted lumpsum compensation
amount in both the M.A.C.P.'s without even dealing
with the income aspect of the deceased and no
assessment has been made in accordance with the
multiplier method. It is required to be noted that
the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the actual
amount to be paid to the claimant/s. This approach
of the learned Tribunal is to be deprecated since
every claimant as well as litigant is entitled to know
the details of the calculations arrived at for the total
compensation amount ordered to be paid. It is the
right of every litigant to the lis to know each and
every detail of the calculation towards the
compensation amount.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/360/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
6. Here, it is relevant to refer to the observations made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitender
Kumar (supra), which is as under :-
"8. In our view, such approach of the High Court
while disposing of the petition cannot be
countenanced. Time and again, this Court has
emphasised the necessity of giving reasons in suport
of the conclusion because it is the reason, which
indicates the application of mind. It is, therefore,
obligatory for the Court to assign the reasons as to
why the petition is allowed or rejected, as the case
may be."
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the common
judgment dated 10.10.2023 passed in both the
M.A.C.P.'s, i.e. M.A.C.P. No.111 of 2015 and
M.A.C.P. No.112 of 2015 by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Court No.18, City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad are quashed and set aside.
The above stated M.A.C.P.'s are remanded to the
learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is directed
to appreciate the evidence on record and to decide
the compensation amount under various heads. It is
also kept open for the learned Advocates on record to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/360/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
re-argue the matters on all the aspects including the
negligence aspect.
8. A copy of this order be placed before the learned
Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad to apprise the facts and with a further
direction to all the learned Judges handling Motor
Accident Claim Petitions under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, to ensure that the details of calculation of
compensation amount following various decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, should be reflected in the
judgments delivered, so that the litigants to the lis
would have the knowledge of the reasons for the
compensation.
9. In the result, since the matter has not been dealt on
merits, the total Court Fees paid by the appellant/s
be refunded back to them in both the above matters.
The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the matter
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the writ of the order of this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/360/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2024
undefined
10. The Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Over and above the regular mode of service, Direct
Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
