1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the
impugned judgment and award dated 01.05.2019 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main)
Panchmahals at Godhra in M.A.C.P. No. 2 of 2018, whereby
the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.6,65,040/- (Rupees Six Lakh Sixty-Five
Thousand Forty Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the
captioned appeal are summarized as under:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Exh. No.
Cross-examination of Claimant No.1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/589/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
vi. The respondents herein have not led any evidence
before the learned Tribunal.
vii. Having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.6,65,040/- (Rupees Six Lakh
Sixty-Five Thousand Forty Only) along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation.
viii. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the original
Claimants/appellants herein have preferred the
captioned appeal on the ground of quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Nishit A Bhalodi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the original claimants/appellants herein vehemently
submitted that the learned Tribunal had considered the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/589/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
income of the deceased at very lower side. He further
submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was
gainfully engaged in imparting tuitions and doing agricultural
work, thereby earning Rs.13,000/- per month from both these
sources of income. However, the learned Tribunal had
considered the income of the deceased as Rs.4,200/- per
month, which is lower than the minimum wages prevalent at
the time of accident. He further submitted that documentary
evidence of the income could not be produced on record,
therefore, in the absence of evidence to prove the income, the
learned Tribunal could have considered the minimum wages
prevalent at the relevant point of time to determine the
income of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,200/- per month,
which is required to be enhanced. He further submitted that
though the deceased was survived by his parents, the learned
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the Loss of
Consortium. He further contended that the learned Tribunal
has awarded meagre amount of compensation under the
heads of Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses. He contended
that that learned Tribunal ought to have awarded
compensation under these conventional heads in accordance
with the ratio of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. He
further submitted that just compensation be awarded to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/589/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
original claimants/appellants herein and the impugned
judgment and award be modified to that extent.
5. Per contra, Mr. H. G. Mazmudar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 - Insurance
Company vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has
awarded just compensation under all the heads. He further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the
income of the deceased at the time of the accident as the
claimants/appellants herein could not prove the income of the
deceased at the time of accident, therefore, there is no
infirmity in determining the income of the deceased. He
further submitted there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment and award, hence, the instant appeal is devoid of
any merit and contended that the same deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused the material
available on record, it is to be noted that there is no dispute
regarding the issue of negligence. The original
claimants/appellants herein have challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
7. It is the case of the original claimants/appellants herein
before the learned Tribunal that their son (deceased) was
gainfully engaged in imparting tuitions and doing agricultural
work, thereby earning Rs.13,000/- per month from both
sources of income. But the said income of the deceased could
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/589/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
not be proved on record before the learned Tribunal by
leading any documentary evidence. It is on record that the
learned Tribunal had considered the monthly income of the
deceased at the time of accident as Rs.4,200/-. In the absence
of any proof of income, the learned Tribunal could have
considered the minimum wages notified by the State
Government of Gujarat for such a skilled worker prevalent at
the relevant point of time for assessing the income of the
deceased. The accident in question occurred on 04.12.2017.
At the time of the vehicular accident, the minimum wages
notified by the State Government of Gujarat for such a skilled
worker was Rs.8,388/- per month. Therefore, in the absence of
any evidence of income, the monthly income of the appellant
is reassessed as Rs.8,388/- per month.
8. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was aged about 18 years and 6 months, therefore,
the notional monthly income of the deceased is to be
enhanced by 40% in view of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
Therefore, after adding 40% of the notional income to the
monthly income of the deceased, the monthly income of the
deceased would come to Rs.11,743.2/- (i.e, Rs.8,388/- + 40%
of Rs.8,388/- = Rs.11,743.2/-). Thus, the income of the
deceased is reassessed as Rs.11,743.2/- per month.
9. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was not married, therefore, in view of the ratio of
the judgments rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/589/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
and Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104, 50% of the monthly income is
required to be deducted on account of the personal expenses
of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting 50% of the total
income on account of the personal expenses of the deceased,
the net monthly income for calculating the future loss of
dependency would come to Rs.5,872/- (i.e., Rs.11,743.2/- -
50% of Rs.11,7432./- = 5871.6, which is rounded off to
Rs.5,872/-).
10. As noted above, the deceased was aged about 18 years
and 6 months at the time of accident, therefore, after applying
the multiplier of "18", the original claimants/appellants herein
shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.12,68,352/- (i.e, Rs.5,872/- X
12 X multiplier of "18") under the head of Future Loss of
Dependency.
11. It is on record that the instant appeal as well as the
Claim Petition was filed by the parents of the deceased.
Therefore, the parents are also entitled for compensation
under the head of Loss of Consortium, however, the learned
Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under
this head. Thus, in view of the ratio of judgment rendered in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)and Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Ram (supra), a sum of Rs.96,800/- (i.e., Rs.48,400 X 2) is
awarded under the head of Loss of Consortium.
12. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of
Rs.15,000/- under the head of Loss of Estate, and a sum of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/589/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the Funeral Expenses. The said
amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance
with the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram (supra). Thus, after considering the ratio of
the aforesaid judgments, a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded
under the head of funeral expenses, and a sum of Rs. 18,150/-
is awarded under the head of loss of estate.
13. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount in rupees.
No.
1 Future Loss of Dependency. 12,68,352/-
2 Loss of Consortium. (+) 96,800/-
3 Loss of Estate. (+) 18,150/-
4 Funeral Expenses. (+) 18,150/-
5 Total Compensation 14,01,452
Compensation awarded by the
6 learned Tribunal vide the 6,65,040/-
impugned judgment and award
dated 01.05.2019.
7 Enhanced amount of 7,36,412/-
Compensation
14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for an additional
compensation to the tune of Rs.7,36,412/- (Rupees Seven
Lakh Thirty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Twelve Only). The
learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/589/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till
realization. The said rate of interest is maintained;
accordingly, the original claimants/appellants herein shall be
entitled to 9% of interest per annum on the additional amount
of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim Petition
till its realization.
15. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment
and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent and
accordingly, the captioned appeal stands partly allowed.
16. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest
within a period of six weeks from today. Upon depositing the
said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire
awarded amount to the original claimants/appellants herein
(deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
17. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this
Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned
forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the
learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
