Gujarat High Court
Seemabhai Samjibhai Garasia vs Lalitkumar Chhaganbhai Marvadi on 12 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4875/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4875 of 2022
==========================================================
SEEMABHAI SAMJIBHAI GARASIA & ORS.
Versus
LALITKUMAR CHHAGANBHAI MARVADI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 12/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - original
claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Dahod, in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.102 of 2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The deceased Shamjibhai was working as labourer and
residing at Surat; on 25/01/2013, at 18:30 hours, when he
was returning from Kosamba after purchasing household
goods and vegetables, he was walking on side of road near
Shital Hotel at village Sava Patia, at that time, the opponent
No.1 came driving his Swift Car No.GJ-01-CX-7047 in rash
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4875/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
and negligent manner and as he lost control over steering,
the car hit Shamjibhai, as a result, Shamjibhai sustained
serious injuries and died during the medical treatment. An
F.I.R. came to be lodged with Kosamba police station vide
1st C.R.No.22/2013 regarding this accident. Deceased
Shamjibhai was aged 52 years and was hale and hearty. He
was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from masonry and
agriculture work; and would have earned more income in
future, had he lived full span of life. The claimant incurred
expenses on various heads. Hence, the claim petition came to
be filed to obtain compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the
opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being the driver, owner and
insurer of Maruti Swift car No.GJ-01 CX-7047.
2.2 The claim petition was proceeded and vide judgment
and award dated 18.01.2020, amount of compensation came to
be awarded to the claimant.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Dahod, in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.102 of 2013, the present appeal is
preferred by the appellants.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim for the
appellants and learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4875/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim for the
appellants has drawn my attention towards the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. V. Vinish Jain reported in 2018 (3) SCC 619. He
has further submitted that the tribunal has not properly
considered the settled proposition of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Road
Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Others
reported in 1987 (3) SCC 234 as well as the judgment of
this High Court in the case of Jenabhai Widow of Abdul
Karim Musa and others V. Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation reported in 1991 (1) GLH 404 and submitted
that the tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under
the head of loss of dependency. He has further submitted
that the tribunal ought to have awarded amount under the
head of loss of filial consortium to the claimant.
4.1 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the
appellants that under the head of dependency, tribunal ought
to have computed the compensation by considering the income
of deceased Rs.6,000/- per month and thereafter, adding 25%
towards future prospective rise in income as the deceased
was aged 52 years and therefore, multiplier ought to have
been considered 11 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4875/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the
respondent No.3 has supported the findings of the judgment
and award passed by the tribunal, however, he is also not in
a position to dispute the legal position prevailing, as on
today, regarding the calculation of the compensation to be
awarded in the case of motor accidents claim cases.
6. 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.
6.1 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 claimant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4875/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
6.2 Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National
Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 as well as Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram and Ors reported in (2018)
18 SCC 130, and the other judgments cited at the bar, the
tribunal has committed error in awarding the total amount of
Rs.80,000/- only with 8% interest per annum towards
compensation to the claimant.
6.3 Considering the income of the deceased Rs.5,000/- per
month and as the deceased was aged 52 years, as per the
judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 10%
prospective rise in the income can be considered, therefore,
Rs.500/- is required to be added and therefore, Rs.5,500/- is
considered as future loss of income. The amount towards
personal expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted
by half i.e. by 50% and therefore, Rs.2,750/- is required to be
deducted from Rs.5,500/-, which comes to Rs.2,750/-, which is
required to be considered for the calculation of the loss of
future income per month, multiplied by 12 months, it comes
to Rs.33,000/- per annum and multiplied by 11 multiplier,
comes to Rs.3,63,000/-, this amount should be considered as
loss of dependency.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4875/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
6.4 Considering the fact that the amount towards loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses are required
to be considered by keeping in mind the ratio laid down by
the judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance
(supra). Prima facie, now for the surviving appellants, the
amount of Rs.77,000/- under the head of loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses would meet the
requirement under the law and that amount is found
reasonable and proper.
6.5 Thus, the appellant - claimant is entitled to get the
following final amount as compensation:
Sr.No. Particulars Amounts (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 3,63,000/-
2. Loss of estate, loss of 77,000/-
consortium and funeral expenses
Total... 4,40,000/-.
6.6 Now, deducting amount of Rs.80,000/- which was already
awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement of Rs.3,60,000/- as
additional amount of compensation is required to be awarded
by allowing the present appeal.
7. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed by awarding
Rs.3,60,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4875/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
claim petition till the actual payment is made by the
respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. However, it is also
relevant to note that in para 18 of the impugned judgment
the tribunal has considered that the claimant are entitled to
get interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of
petition till its realization, except the period from 12.09.2014
to 25.09.2019. The same rider will be applicable for the
enhanced amount as tribunal has already considered that
aspect in the impugned judgment. The learned advocates for
the respective parties have jointly requested that such
observation shall be maintained for the enhanced amount
also. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the interest which is awarded on
enhanced amount will exclude the period from 12.09.2014 to
25.09.2019, but, for the rest of the period i.e. from the date
of claim petition till the actual realization, the interest shall
be paid at the rate of 8% per annum on the enhanced
amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. The respondent No.3 - Insurance
Company shall deposit the enhanced amount with interest
within a month from today before the concerned tribunal.
7.1 Upon deposition of such amount, the concerned tribunal
shall disburse the entire amount lying with the tribunal by
way of account payee cheque or by way of depositing the
amount in the bank account of the claimant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4875/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2024
undefined
8. With above observations and directions, the appeal
succeeds. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid
extent.
9. Record and proceedings, if any, lying before this Court,
shall be sent back forthwith to the concerned tribunal.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SLOCK BAROT
