Gujarat High Court
Hasumatiben Jagdishbhai Prajapati vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 26 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2638/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2638 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
HASUMATIBEN JAGDISHBHAI PRAJAPATI
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 26/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - original
claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2638/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2024
undefined
judgment and award dated 13.11.1997 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.2341 of 1997, by which the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.75,000/- with 9% per annum interest to the
claimant/s, holding opponents liable, jointly and severally.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 That on 13.11.1997, when the appellant, his wife and
children were travelling from Bareja to Khambat in ST Bus, at
that time driver of opponent no.1 and opponent no.2 dashed
their vehicles on Kans Road of Matar Taluka, as a result of
which serious road accident took place, in which ST bus driver
died and appellants sustained injuries. According to appellants,
the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the
part of drivers of ST bus as well as truck. The appellant filed
claim petition for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2.2 Notices were served to the opponents. Opponent has
appeared and filed its written statement / objections, by
disputing all the averments made by the claimant in the claim
petition in their written statements.
2.3 The Tribunal has framed the issues. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2638/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2024
undefined
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.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Jignesh Kapadia for the
appellant - claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has
committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of
income, the compensation under the heads of pain, shock and
suffering, special diet / transportation expenses and actual loss
for one month. He has submitted that amount of award is on
lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the
various aspects; like nature of accident, injuries and period of
hospitalisation as well as the duration of recovery. He has
submitted that the injured was aged about only 27 years at the
time of accident. He has submitted that at the relevant point of
time, her monthly income was Rs.1,800/- as per the rates of
minimum wages prevailing in the State and as per the Minimum
Wages Act in view of the decision of this Court in the case of
Geetaben Wd/o. Sardarbhai Dharubhai Ninama versus
Durgashankar Kaniram Shankar reported in 2023 (0) ACJ 2586,
upon which he has relied upon. He has submitted that
therefore, considering the loss of dependency, it would be
calculated as Rs.1,800/- as monthly income plus 40%
prospective income minus 20% disability multiplied by 12
months and multiplied by 17 multiplier would come to
Rs.1,02,816/- total future loss, which should be awarded to the
claimants by the learned Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2638/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2024
undefined
3.2 He has further submitted that in view of the catena of
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal ought to have
awarded compensation under the heads of actual loss, pain,
shock and suffering and special diet / transportation expenses
as Rs.7,200/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.20,000/-, respectively.
3.3 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, Ms. Desai, learned advocate for
respondent - S.T. Corporation has 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. He has submitted that the the applicant has not
examined the person issuing the certificate about the salary. He
has submitted that under the head of pain, shock and suffering,
the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation. He has
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 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2638/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2024
undefined
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 Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 27
years and was doing tailoring work and her monthly income
could be considered as Rs.1800/- at the relevant point of time,
as per the minimum wage prevailing in the State of Gujarat,
keeping in mind the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of
Geetaben Wd/o. Sardarbhai Dharubhai Ninama (supra) as well
as by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav versus
New India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683. It
is required to be noted that on one hand, the Tribunal has
observed that the claimant was doing tailoring work and on the
other hand, the Tribunal has failed to consider the minimum
wage prevailing in the State of Gujarat at that time, though he
has not examined the person who has issued certificate about
the salary. The Tribunal has committed an error to that extent
only, which is required to be corrected in this appeal. Therefore,
looking to the minimum wages prevailing in the State of Gujarat
at the relevant time, it should be considered as monthly income
of the deceased. Hence, it would be Rs.1800/- per month as
minimum wage and by adding 40% prospective income, it would
come to Rs.2520/- and therefore, total income comes to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2638/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2024
undefined
Rs.2520/- per month. Since the injured is aged about 27 years
and there is disability to the extent 20% as observed by the
Tribunal, therefore, Rs.504/- would come which is to be
considered. Hence, Rs.504/- per month multiplied by 12 months
would come to Rs.6048/- and applying 17 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.1,02,816/- as future loss of income, which is
required to be awarded to the claimants.
6.2 Since there is no dispute with regard to the disability,
multiplier and medical expenses, this Court does not want to
interfere in it and the same is confirmed.
6.3 Further, under the head of actual loss of income,
pain, shock and suffering and attendant charges /
transportation expenses, as per the various decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it should be Rs.7200/-, Rs.20,000/- and
Rs.20,000/-, respectively, which should be awarded to the
claimant.
6.4 Under the circumstances, and in view of the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court noted above, the claimants are
entitled to get more compensation as noted above. Hence, total
compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are
entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2638/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2024
undefined
Future loss of income 1,02,816/-
Rs.1800/- per month + 40% prospective
income = Rs.2520 per month
20% disability, it would come to Rs.504/-
per month.
(Rs.504 x 12 months) x 17 multiplier
Actual loss of income 7,200/-
Pain, shock and suffering 20,000/-
Special diet, Attendant Charges and 20,000/-
Transportation Expenses, medical expenses
etc.
Total... 1,50,016/-
Less : Amount which is already awarded 74,000/-
Additional amount which is awarded 76,016/-
7. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled to get
the total amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,016/- with 9% 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.74,000/-, therefore, remaining amount of
Rs.76,016/- would be the enhanced amount of compensation
payable to the claimant/s.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
8.1 The appeal is partly allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2638/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2024
undefined
8.2 The S.T. Corporation / Insurance Company are
jointly and severally directed to deposit the enhanced amount
Rs.76,016/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of claim petition
till its realisation before the concerned Tribunal, within a period
of four 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 claimant/s, 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.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
