[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Heirs Of Decd.Pradipsinh @ ... vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 3 December, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/3759/2012                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3759 of 2012


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                      Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                        HEIRS OF DECD.PRADIPSINH @ PRADHUMANSINH GUMANSINH &
                                                 ORS.
                                                 Versus
                           GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
                      MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                      MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
                      RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
                      ==========================================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

                                                         Date : 03/12/2025
                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned

judgment and award dated 06.08.2012 passed by the learned

Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition

No.294 of 2003, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a

sum of Rs.3,67,000/- as a compensation along with the interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till its realization.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal is that

on 11.12.2002 at about 6:30 pm, Pradip Sinh and other injured

person were travelling in a car bearing registration No.GJ-01-PP-

2617 towards Gondal and when they reached at the place of

accident, in the meantime the ST bus owned by ST Corporation

came in a rash and negligent manner from the wrong side and

dashed with the car. Owing to the said accident, the Pradip Sinh

sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted to the hospital

at Rajkot where he took his last breath on 13.12.2002.

3. It is also the case of the claimants that at the time of

accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years and he was

engaged in the occupation of grain merchant as well as the

agricultural work and thereby earning a handsome amount.

Therefore, they claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of

compensation.

4. Upon being served with the summons of the claim petition,

the ST Corporation filed the written statement at Exh-17 and

thereby denying the contents of the claim petition and prayed for

dismissal of the claim petition. United India Insurance Company

Limited filed the written statement at Exh-44 thereby contended

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

that the driver of the car was not holding legal and valid driving

license at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance

Company is not liable to satisfy the award.

5. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned

Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh-22.

"1. Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?

2. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a vehicular accident due to rash and/or negligent driving of the vehicle involved in the accident?

3. What amount the claimants are entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponent?

4. What order?"

6. In order to prove his claim, the appellants had led following

oral as well as documentary evidences before the learned

Tribunal:-

                       Sr       Particulars                                     Exhibit
                       No.

1. Affidavit of examination-in-chief of 46 appellant No.1

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

7. The driver of ST bus filed his affidavit at Exh-78 and he

was cross-examined. No other evidence was led by the

respondents.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the learned

Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- as a

compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per

annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its

realization.

9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and award, the appellants/claimants have filed the

captioned appeal for challenging the impugned judgment and

award on the point of quantum.

10. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

11. Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned advocate appearing on behalf

of the appellants, vehemently submitted that at the time of

accident the deceased was aged about 28 years and he was

engaged in the business of grain merchant and also doing the

agricultural work. She further submitted that the learned

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased from the both

sources of income as Rs.3,000/- per month. She further

submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income at

a lower side. She further submitted that in the affidavit, it has

been deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- from the

business of grain merchant and he was earning Rs.1,00,000/-

per year from the agriculture. However, the learned Tribunal has

considered the income of Rs.3,000/- which is at a lower side.

She further submitted that though the deceased was aged about

29 years, but the learned Tribunal has not enhanced the

notional income by 40% on account of future prospects of the

deceased. She further submitted that though the learned

Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the

deceased was aged about 29 years but the learned Tribunal has

applied the multiplier of 15 in place of 17. She further submitted

that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under

the head of pain, shock and suffering. After the accident, the

deceased was admitted to the hospital, he took his last breath on

13.12.2002, therefore, the reasonable amount ought to have

been awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering. She

further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a

meager amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of estate

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

and consortium and a sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of

funeral expenses. She urged that the amount of compensation

awarded under these heads is to be enhanced considering the

ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi, reported

in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance

Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram reported in

2018 (18) SCC 130.

12. On the other hand, Ms. Hina Desai, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-ST Corporation,

vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly

considered the income of the deceased. She further submitted

that so far the multiplier and the compensation under the head

of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses may be

awarded as per the settled legal positions of the law. She further

submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment

and award, therefore the present appeal deserves to be rejected.

13. Having considered the submissions of the learned

advocates for the parties and having gone through the record, it

is to be noted that there is no dispute regarding the accident,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

manner of occurrence of accident, negligence, age and

occupation of the deceased. Learned advocate for the appellant

challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of

income and compensation awarded under the conventional

heads.

14. So far as the income is concerned, it is pleaded in the claim

petition and deposed in affidavit that the deceased was aged

about 28 years and he was engaged in the business of grain

merchant and he was having a shop at Bharwada and earning a

sum of Rs.6,000/- per month from the said business and he was

also engaged in agricultural work and having agricultural land

and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per year. The

claimants/appellants have placed the farmer book at Exh-53

which shows that the deceased was having the agricultural land

in his name, therefore, from all these materials it can be held

that the deceased was engaged in the business of grain

merchant as well as doing the agricultural work at the time of

accident but the claimants/appellant could not prove the income

form both sources of earning. The learned Tribunal considering

the materials on record and assessed the income of the deceased

as Rs.3,000/- per month. In my considered view, the learned

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

Tribunal has assessed the income at a very lower side. Thus,

considering the nature of occupations of the deceased at the

time of accident it would be just and proper, if the income of the

deceased is assessed at Rs.5,000/- from both the sources of

income at the time of accident and accordingly the income of the

deceased is assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of

accident. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the

deceased was aged about 28 to 29 years, therefore, the 40% of

the notional income is required to be added on account of future

prospects of the deceased in view of the judgment in the case of

Sarla Varma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported

in 2009 (06) SCC 121 and Pranay Shethi(supra). Thus, after

adding 40% of the the notional income of the deceased, the

monthly income for calculating the loss of dependency would

come to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 40% of 5000).

15. It is undisputed fact that the deceased was survived by 3

legal representatives. Therefore, 1/3 of the income is to be

deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased.

Hence, net income would come to Rs.4,667/- (Rs.7,000/- (less)

Rs.2333/-). Considering the age of the deceased, as 28 to 29, the

multiplier of 17 is to be applied. Therefore, the future loss of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

dependency would come to Rs.9,52,068/- i.e. (4667 x 12 x 17).

16. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of

Rs.2,000/- under the both head of loss of estate and loss of

consortium. In my considered view, the learned Tribunal has

awarded a compensation under these heads very conservatively

at lower side. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,45,200/- i.e. (48400 x 3 )

is awarded under the head of loss of consortium to all the three

legal representatives in accordance to the ratio of the judgment

of Apex Court rendered in the case of Magma General

Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130. Further, a sum of Rs.18,150/-

is awarded under the head of loss of estate and a sum of

Rs.18,150/- under the head of funeral expenses. It is also on

record that the accident took place on 11.12.2002 and thereafter

the deceased was admitted to the hospital at Rajkot, where he

received treatment and he took his last breath on 13.12.2002.

During the period of treatment he would have suffered a lot of

pain, shock and suffering. However, the learned Tribunal has not

awarded any amount of compensation under the head of pain,

shock and suffering. Therefore, it would be just and proper if a

sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of pain, shock

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

and suffering.

17. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the appellant shall

be entitled for the following compensation under the following

heads:-

                                                   Particulars                            Amount (Rs.)
                          Future Loss of Income                                                  9,52,068/-
                          Loss of consortium                                                     1,45,200/-
                          Loss of estate                                                            18,150/-
                          Funeral expenses                                                          18,150/-
                          Pain, Shock and Suffering                                                 10,000/-
                                                                                Total          11,43,568/-
                                       Less: compensation already awarded                        3,67,000/-
                                                                       Enhancement              7,76,568/-

18. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,67,000/-,

therefore, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled for an

additional amount of compensation of Rs.7,76,568/-

(Rs.11,43,568/- (Less) Rs.3,67,000/-). The learned Tribunal has

awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date

of filing of the claim petition till realization. Therefore, the

claimants shall also be entitled for the same rate of interest on

the additional amount of compensation.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3759/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025

undefined

19. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal