Gujarat High Court
Gajraj Kalidas Solanki(Minor) Through ... vs Sardarbhai Joraji Vanzara on 13 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/634/2012 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 634 of 2012
==========================================================
GAJRAJ KALIDAS SOLANKI(MINOR) THROUGH SAVITABEN KALIDAS SOLA
& ORS.
Versus
SARDARBHAI JORAJI VANZARA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUREN M SHAH(1118) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants - original
claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and award dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Ahmeabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.2161 of 1996.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on
17.06.1996, one Vinodbhai Sonara was riding in triple on
motorcycle No.GBN-4462 from Mihijada to Saroda and deceased
Kalidas Kuberdas Solanki and one Kuberbhai Solanki was
travelling as pillion riders and when they reached near the place
of accident, one Truck bearing No.GJ-1-V-6768 came from
wrong side 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/634/2012 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
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.
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 - Insurance
Company 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 under the head of loss of estate and funeral
expenses, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation. He
has submitted that the amount under the head of loss of
consortium is just and proper. He has submitted that this
appeal may be dismissed and no interference be made by this
Court.
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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/634/2012 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
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.
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 whereby learned Tribunal
granted total compensation of Rs.7,70,000/- to the claimants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/634/2012 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
The facts noticed from the pleadings are that on 17.06.1996, one
Vinodbhai Sonara was riding motorcycle No.GBN-4462 in triple
from Mihijada to Saroda and deceased Kalidas Kuberdas Solanki
and one Kuberbhai Solanki was travelling as pillion riders and
when they reached near the place of accident, one Truck bearing
No.GJ-1-V-6768 came from wrong side in rash and negligent
manner and dashed with the motorcycle and upon occurrence of
the accident, deceased Kalidas sustained fatal injuries and later
on died. From the record, it transpires that the learned Tribunal
has erred in not adding the future prospects. Hence, considering
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% rise is given for loss of
future prospects as deceased was not having permanetn source
of income. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of
accident, hence as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), multiplier of 17 would be
applied. Further, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 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 Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram - 2018 (18) SCC 130. The interest rate granted by
the learned Tribunal is maintained. Learned Tribunal in case on
had assessed 20% negligence of the motorcyclist and 80%
negligence of truck driver. However, considering the fact that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/634/2012 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
deceased was pillion rider, it is a case of composite negligence
and both wrong doers or any of them are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Finding of
learned Tribunal is in consonance with judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Pawan Kumar & Anr. v. Harkishan Dass
Mohan Lal & Ors. -2014 (3) SCC 590, which is reiterated in
Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited - 2015 (9)
SCC 273. Thus, the said finding is approved.
6.2 Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimants/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future dependency Loss 12,85,200/-
Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2400/- (40% rise)
=Rs.8400/- minus 1/4 personal exp.
=Rs.6300/- x 12 months x 17 multiplier
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Consortium (Rs.48,400/- x 4 dependents) 1,93,600/-
Total 15,15,100/-
Less: amount which is already awarded 7,70,000/-
Additional amount which is awarded 7,45,100/-
7. Therefore, I hold that the claimants are entitled to get the
enhanced compensation of Rs.7,45,100/- with 9% p.a. interest
from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization, jointly
and severally from the opponents, which would meet the ends of
justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/634/2012 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
8.1 The present appeal is partly allowed.
8.2 The Insurance Company 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 claimants, after making apportionment, if
required, 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)
GAURAV J THAKER
