Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Gopalbhai Mangaldas Kanojiya on 5 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2785 of 2012
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 ?
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
GOPALBHAI MANGALDAS KANOJIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAL S SHAH(3988) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 05/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance
Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 30.4.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.1165 of 2005, by which, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2024
undefined
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding
Rs.3,02,000/- with 8% p.a. interest to be paid to claimant/s,
by holding opponents liable, jointly and severally.
2. The facts of the present appeal are as under :
2.1 The claimants filed the claim petition stating that on
27.2.2005, at about 10.45 p.m., at night, deceased Rajubhai
Kanojiya was passing from Shahpur Halimni Khadki towards
Delhi Darwaja and at that time, the opponent no.1 came
with motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ.1CN.2416 from
behind in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the
deceased, as a result of the same, the deceased fell down
and collapsed on the road and he succumbed to the injuries
during treatment. The claimants, therefore, filed the claim
petition for compensation.
2.2 The notices were served to the opponents. The opponent
no.1 was deleted, the opponent no.2 did not file any reply
and the opponent no.3 filed the reply denying the contentions
of the claim petition. The issues were framed by the
Tribunal. Oral as well as documentary evidence were led
before the Tribunal. After hearing the submissions made by
the rival parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim
petition(s) and awarded compensation as noted above.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2024
undefined
2.3 Hence, the insurance company has filed the present
appeal before this Court.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance
Company has mainly assailed the impugned judgment and
award on the ground of quantum. He submitted that the
amount of compensation awarded is on the higher side, as
the learned Tribunal has considered the income on the higher
side. Further, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of
the claimant no.1 of 51 years at the time of accident instead
of considering the age of the deceased who was 36 years at
the time of accident; the prospective income is considered at
50%, which should be less. Therefore, he submitted that the
compensation should be awarded less, which is required to be
modified.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the claimants has
submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal
is just and proper. He submitted that if the wages are
considered as per the minimum wages, prospective income is
added, personal expenses are deducted and the multiplier is
applied in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment in
the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay
Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680, then also the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2024
undefined
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and
proper and therefore, no interference is required by this
Court. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss this appeal.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
respective parties. I have perused the record and proceedings.
I have gone through the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal. I have also considered the pleadings
of the parties before the Tribunal.
6. The only point raised by learned advocate for the
appellant-insurance company is quantum. It transpires from
the record that the accident happened on 27.2.2005 and the
deceased was aged 36 years at the time of accident, as per
the say of the claimants. If the minimum wages on the date
of accident are seen, then it has to be taken at Rs.2,400/-
and adding 40% prospective income to the same, it would
come to Rs.3360/-. As the deceased was unmarried, ½ should
be deducted towards personal expenses; therefore the future
loss of dependency would come to Rs.1680/- per month.
Multiplying it with 12 and applying the multiplier of 15,
looking to the age and the ratio laid down in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), and therefore the future loss of income
would come to Rs.3,02,400/-. Adding Rs.5,000/- towards the
funeral expenses, the amount would come to Rs.3,07,400/-. As
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2785/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/09/2024
undefined
against this, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,02,000/-.
The compensation under the other heads of loss of consortium
and loss of estate is not properly awarded by the learned
Tribunal as the deceased was unmarried and the claimants
were brothers of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the
above discussion, after applying the ratio laid down in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount awarded by the
learned Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side. This
appeal is, therefore, required to be dismissed.
7. In view of above, the following order is passed.
7.1 The present appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
7.2 The amount lying with the Tribunal and/or in the FDR,
pursuant to the order of this Court if any, shall be disbursed
to the claimant, along with accrued interest thereon if any,
by account payee cheque, after proper verification and after
following due procedure, within a period of six weeks from
today.
7.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
