Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Pushpaben Bharatbhai Parmar W/O ... on 6 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/460/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 57 of 2022
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 of 2018
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
PUSHPABEN BHARATBHAI PARMAR W/O DECEASED BHARATBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 06/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Gujarat State
Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the judgment and award dated 23.01.2017 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.223 of 2013. The claimants have filed cross-
objections in the present appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on
01.02.2013, the deceased Bharatbhai was driving his motorcycle
No.GJ-23-S-6541 and when he reached near the place of
accident, one ST Bus bearing No.GJ-18-Y-5595 came in rash
and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle and upon
occurrence of the accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and
later on died.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/460/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the
appellant - GSRTC. Advocate notice was issued to the claimants
and despite it was served, none remained present for the
claimants. In such circumstances, the Court requested learned
advocate Mr.Amit N. Patel to appear for the claimants in cross-
objections in the capacity of Amicus Curiae.
3.1 Learned advocate for the appellant - GSRTC submits that
in absence of any documentary evidence learned Tribunal taken
up Rs.3500/- as monthly income of the deceased to calculate
loss of dependency and loss of future prospects. He submits that
the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating
the amount of compensation. Mainly upon above submissions,
he would submit to recompute the compensation by taking
Rs.2,000/- as monthly income of the deceased.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Amit Patel would argue that before
learned Tribunal claimants have produced bonafide certificate at
mark 18/2 which demonstrates that deceased has attended new
efficiency first look clinic conducted by Microsoft in 2009 and he
was having computer knowledge. He would further submit that
deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month but the learned
Tribunal committed serious error in taking Rs.3,500/- per month
as the rate of minimum wage was higher than Rs.5000/- per
month for skilled worker at the time of road accident. The
deceased was survived by widow, minor children and parents but
learned Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- towards consortium which
is required to be rationalized. Therefore, he submits to dismiss the
appeal filed by GSRTC and to allow the cross-objections.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/460/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
5. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial
piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair compensation is
integral and seminal to the MV Act. The compensation to be
awarded under the principle of just and fair compensation to the
injured of the road accident or the legal representative/s of the
deceased person is based on the principle of fairness,
reasonableness and equability. Anguish of the heart or for
mental turbulence being consequential result of the road
accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint
essentiality lies in adopting holistic and pragmatic view to the
computation of the compensation for the loss sustained, which is
to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Although exact or
perfect arithmetical calculation of compensation for reparation of
the loss arrived from the road accident is almost impossible. The
Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make an endevour to award
just compensation regardless of the amount claimed by the
claimants. The determination of the quantum of compensation
therefore, must be liberal and not niggardly since the law values
life and limb in a free country in generous scale. Needless to
state that money may be awarded, so that something tangible
may be procured to reach something else of the like nature,
which has been destroyed or lost, but money cannot renew
physical frame that has been battered and shattered being a
result of the road accident. Yet Tribunal to endavour to bring
back victim to stage of pre-road accident as far as possible
Thus, the award must be reasonable and cannot be assessed
with moderation though it cannot at the same time be pity and
what could be granted must be just, fair and equitable
compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/460/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
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 learned Tribunal. It could be noticed that
driving licence of the deceased has been produced at Mark 6/4
which demonstrate birth date of deceased as 15.01.1991 and
accident took place on 01.02.2013, which means that 22 year
old person has lost his life which is termed as top killer accident
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N.K.V. Brothers Private
Limited vs. M. Karumal Ammal- 1980 (3) SCC 457. The
relevant para of the judgment is as under :
"3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our
country, specially when truck and bus drivers
operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness
often persuades the courts, as has been observed
by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial
presumption in several cases based on the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take
special care to see that innocent victims do not
suffer and drivers and owners do not escape
liability merely because of some doubt here or some
obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must
be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly
reasonable. The court should not succumb to
niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are
emphasising this aspect because we are often
distressed by transport operators getting away with
it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they
do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over
the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The
heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public
transport must bring owner and driver to their
responsibility to their 'neighbour'. Indeed, the State
must seriously consider no- fault liability by
legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the
inadequacy of the compensation or undue
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/460/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
parsimony practised by tribunals. We must
remember that judicial tribunals are State organs
and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the
jurisprudential foundation for state relief against
accidental disablement of citizens. There is no
justification for niggardliness in compensation. A
third factor which is harrowing is the enormous
delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in
compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by
several years. The States must appoint sufficient
number of tribunals and the High Courts should
insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and
tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by
the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are
unjustly indifferent in this regard."
6.2 Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the evidence of
bonafide certificate produced at mark-18/2 which demonstrates
that deceased has attended new efficiency first look clinic
conducted by Microsoft in 2009 and he was having computer
knowledge. Even if we ignore all these aspects and take rate of
minimum wage on the day of accident, i.e. Rs.5180/- for skilled
worker is notified by State Government. Thus, this Court fixes
income of deceased at Rs.5,200/- per month for calculating loss of
dependency and future loss. Decease is survived by his widow,
two children and parents, hence, in view of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi - 2017 (16) SCC 680, 1/4 shall be deducted
for personal and pocket expenses. In same breath, 40% rise of
income of deceased is given for calculating loss of future
prospects. The multiplier of 18 would be attributed. Further,
considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Pranay Shethi (supra), the general and non-pecuniary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/460/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
damages, Rs.18,150/- each towards loss of estate and funeral
expenses should be awarded. Towards loss of consortium, there
are five dependents and therefore, Rs.48,400/- to each
dependent should be awarded as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram - 2018 (18) SCC 130
which is reiterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., versus
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC
780. Since the consortium includes compensation for love and
affection, no separate compensation is required to be granted
under the head of love and affection and therefore, I proposes
not to grant compensation under head of love and affection. The
interest rate of 9% per annum granted by learned Tribunal is
maintained.
6.3 Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimants/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future dependency Loss 11,79,360/-
=Rs.5200/- + Rs.2,080/- (40% rise)
=Rs.7,280/- minus 1/4 for personal exp.
=Rs.5460/- x 12 months x 18 multiplier
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Consortium (Rs.48,400/- x 5 dependents) 2,42,000/-
Total 14,58,160/-
Less: Amount which is already awarded 9,00,392/-
Additional amount which is awarded 5,57,768/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/460/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
7. Therefore, I hold that the claimants are entitled to get the
enhanced compensation of Rs.5,57,768/- 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.
7.1 Before parting with the judgment, this Court places word of
appreciation for learned advocate Mr.Amit N. Patel for ably
providing assistance to the Court as Amicus Curiae for awarding
just and fair compensation to the victims who have not chosen
to remain present before the Court perhaps due to financial
constraint.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
8.1 The present appeal filed by GSRTC is dismissed. The
cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed in aforesaid
terms.
8.2 The respondent - GSRTC is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount with interest as stated herein above 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 claimantss, by account payee cheque /
NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/460/2018 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
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)
GAURAV J THAKER
