Gujarat High Court
Induben Mohanbhai Patel vs Mangalbhai Gulabbhai Rathod on 11 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2591/2010 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2591 of 2010
==========================================================
INDUBEN MOHANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
MANGALBHAI GULABBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YV VAGHELA(2450) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 11/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.11.2009
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.1151 of 1995.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 That on the date of incident on 15/6/1995 on the
date of were the appellants' father was coming from Kaiyaj to
Ahmedabad in Truck No. GTJ-5354 and even the necessary
charges was also paid to the said Truck Driver and therefore,
when the said truck reached near Kanbha Bus Stop, the
opponent no.1 driver of the said truck who was driving the same
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2591/2010 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
in a rash and negligent manner had collided with the S.T. Bus
registration No. GJ-1-2-466) (hearing of the opponent no.4 who
was the driver of the opponent no.5 S.T. Corporation and
therefore, the husband of the original claimant no.1 had died on
the sport on account of the said injuries and therefore, the claim
petition was filed for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- before the Ld.
M.A.C. Tribunal, Nadiad.
3. Learned advocate for the appellants - claimants has
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not
properly calculating the amount of compensation. He has
submitted that amount of award is on lower side as the Tribunal
has not properly considered the various aspects; like prospective
income of the deceased, negligence, liability and family
circumstances, etc. He would further submit that the learned
Tribunal even has not granted compensation under the head of
consortium. He would further submit that even the learned
Tribunal has granted the compensation under the non-pecuniary
heads on the lower side.
3.1 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, learned advocate for respondent - GSRTC
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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2591/2010 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
the dependency and future aspect of income. He has submitted
that under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the
Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation. He would further
submit that the ST bus driver though held liable to pay 30% of
the total compensation would be at responsibility to pay entire
compensation as under the issue of contributory negligence, the
claimants would be entitled to recover the compensation jointly
and severally from all the opponents. He has submitted that this
appeal may be dismissed and no interference be made by this
Court.
4.1 I have also heard learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta
appearing for the respondent - Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, which has been exonerated by the learned Tribunal.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2591/2010 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
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.
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. From the record, it
transpires that the deceased was 62 years and earning pension
of Rs.1992/- per month. The deceased was also earning from
his agriculture land. Under these circumstances, the learned
Tribunal has granted Rs.2400/- as monthly income of the
deceased, which according to this Court, is correct. However,
the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting compensation
towards the loss of consortium. Even the learned Tribunal has
granted less compensation towards the non-pecuniary heads.
Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2591/2010 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
case of National GSRTC Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the general and non-pecuniary damages,
Rs.18,150/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses
should be awarded. Towards loss of consortium, there are four
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 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780.
6.2 Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimants/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future dependency Loss 1,34,400/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
funeral expenses 18,150/-
Consortium (48,400 x 4) 1,93,600/-
Total... 3,64,300/-
Less: compensation already awarded 1,61,400/-
Additional amount which is awarded 2,02,900/-
7. Therefore, I hold that the claimantss are entitled to
get the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,02,900/- with 9% p.a.
interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its
realisation, which would meet the ends of justice.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
8.1 The present appeal is partly allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2591/2010 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
8.2 The 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. The claimant
are liable to recover the entire awarded amount of compensation
jointly and severally from the opponent Nos.1,2,4 and 5.
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 claimants, by account payee
cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after
following due procedure.
8.4 Since original appellant Nos.1 and 3 have expired,
the learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the legal heirs
of deceased appellants after due verification.
8.5 The GSRTC is at liberty to recover the amount from
the opponents if it pays excess than its liability by executing this
judgment.
8.6 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct
the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
8.7 Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same.
8.8 Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
