Gujarat High Court
Gopalbhai Popatbhai Tarpara Since ... vs Amrutlal N Patel on 20 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/208/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 208 of 2009
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 ?
==========================================================
GOPALBHAI POPATBHAI TARPARA SINCE DECD.
THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.
Versus
AMRUTLAL N PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS PAURAMI B. SHETH(841) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR ANAL S SHAH(3988) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
SHARMISHTA A DAVE(8735) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 20/06/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/208/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant/s - original
claimant/s - legal heirs of the deceased - Gopalbhai Popatbhai
Tarpara, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award dated 05.02.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Gondal, Camp at Dhoraji in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.495 of 1993, by which the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.5,98,000/- with 7.5% per annum interest to the
claimant/s, holding Opponents No.1 to 4 - the driver, the owner and
the insurance company of Truck bearing registration No.GJ-2-T-6698
and owner of Fiat Car bearing registration No.GTQ-7612,
respectively, liable, jointly and severally.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 That on 15.05.1993 at about 11:30 p.m. near Dhareshwar
on Rajkot-Jetpur Road, the deceased, aged about 32 years, was
travelling in Fiat Car of opponent No.4 and coming from Rajkot to
Dhoraji with a moderate speed. At that time, Truck of opponent No.2
came in rash and negligent manner in full speed, came in wrong side
and dashed with the car and the deceased succumbed to the injuries.
Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased - widow, two minor
children and mother have filed claim petition seeking compensation
of Rs.12.50 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. The insurance
company of the truck has appeared and has filed its written
statement / objections at Exh.15 by disputing all the averments made
by the claimant in the claim petition on the ground that at the
relevant time, the truck driver was not holding valid driving licence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/208/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
The insurance company of the car has also filed its
written statement / objections at Exh.21 and opposed the claim.
2.3 The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.26. 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.
It is noted that upon pushish at Exh.27, the driver of
truck was deleted by the Tribunal.
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.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth 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 32 years at
the time of accident and was doing work of broker in land and
houses. She has fairly submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly
considered the income and prospective income of the deceased, but
has not properly considered the personal expenses and multiplier as
per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again.
She has submitted that accordingly, the dependency loss would be
increased. She has submitted that therefore, considering the loss of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/208/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
dependency, it would be calculated as Rs.3,200/- as monthly income
plus Rs.1,280/- as 40% prospective income minus Rs.3,360/- as
personal expenses (1/4) multiplied by 12 months and multiplied by 16
multiplier would come to Rs.6,45,120/- total loss of dependency,
which should be awarded to the claimants by the learned Tribunal.
She has further submitted that towards loss of
consortium, there are four dependents and therefore, it would be
awarded Rs.1,76,000/- 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.
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, Mr.Anal S. Shah, learned advocate for
respondent No.2 and Ms.Sharmishta A. Dave, learned advocate for
respondent No.4 have submitted that the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has
rightly considered the income of the deceased, the age of the
deceased, the dependency and future aspect of income as well as
consortium. They have submitted that the amount under the head of
loss of consortium is just and proper. They have 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/208/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
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 transpires that the deceased was aged
about 32 years and was working as a land and house broker and his
income was Rs.3,200/- per month as decided by the learned Tribunal
and accepted by the claimants. Therefore, it should be considered as
per day income of the deceased. Therefore, it would come to
Rs.3,200/- per month and by adding 40% prospective income, as
calculated by the learned Tribunal, it would come to Rs.1,280/- and
therefore, total income comes to Rs.4,480/- per month. Since the
deceased is aged about 32 years, 1/4 would be proper to be deducted
as personal expenses and therefore, it would come to Rs.3,360/-.
Hence, the income would come to Rs.3,360/- per month and
therefore, yearly, it would come to Rs.40,320/- and applying 16
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.6,45,120/- as loss of dependency, which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/208/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
required to be awarded to the claimants.
6.2 Further, there are four dependents to the deceased,
consisting widow, two minor children and mother. 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.44,000/- as consortium to each
dependents, therefore, it comes to Rs.1,76,000/-, which should be
awarded to the claimants.
6.3 Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 6,45,120/-
Loss of consortium 2,20,000/-
Total... 8,65,120/-
Less : Amount which is already awarded 5,98,000/-
Additional amount which is awarded 2,67,120/-
7. Therefore, I hold that the claimant/s are entitled to get
the total amount of compensation of Rs.8,65,120/- with 7.5% 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.5,98,000/-, therefore, remaining amount of Rs.2,67,120/- would be
the enhanced amount of compensation payable to the claimant/s.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/208/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
8.1 The present appeal is partly allowed.
8.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount Rs.2,67,120/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date
of claim petition till its realisation before the concerned Tribunal,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8.3 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest
thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT /
RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure.
8.4 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
8.5 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
