Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Anandiben W/O. Fatabhai Prabhatbhai ... on 8 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3932/2007 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3932 of 2007
==========================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
ANANDIBEN W/O. FATABHAI PRABHATBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SAGAR PANDYA FOR MR HM PARIKH(574) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,6
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 08/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Insurance
Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and award dated 19.02.2007 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.1219 of 1994.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 On 24.06.1994, deceased - Fatabhai was travelling in Jeep
No.GRA 9958 for work and when it reached near the place of
accident, one Truck No.GTG 4431 came from opposite side and
dashed the Jeep as a result, accident occurred and deceased
sustained fatal injuries and later on died.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3932/2007 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
3. The appeal is filed by Insurance Company on two grounds.
Firstly, on the ground of not properly appreciating issue of
negligence and secondly income of the deceased is taken on
higher side.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Bhaya for the appellant would
submit that at the time of accident, salary of the deceased was
Rs.1527/- per month. Learned Tribunal has taken up income of
that would have been at the time of deciding claim petition and
after taking average, learned Tribunal has calculated Rs.4060/-
as income per month and then deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses to compute loss of future dependency. She would
further submit that system adopted by learned Tribunal to
calculate compensation is totally erroneous. It is submitted that
learned Tribunal ought to have calculated income of the
deceased as on the date of accident and added future prospects.
However, some different system is adopted to calculate income of
deceased at Rs.4060/- per month.
4.1. Mainly on above submissions, it is submitted to allow the
appeal and reduce amount of compensation.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Hakim referred to
judgment of MACP No.1125 of 1994 passed by MACT, Kheda at
Nadiad to argue that said claim petition arise from selfsame road
accident and issue of negligence decided in this matter has been
effected by the insurance company and no appeal is filed
challenging the issue of negligence by the insurance company
and applying principle of res judicata challenge made in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3932/2007 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
appeal so far as negligence is concerned is not surviving. He
would further submit that merely amount of compensation
worked out by the learned Tribunal at Rs.5,51,744/- for the
person who born on 01.06.1969 and 26 years old at the time of
road accident survived by widow aged 23 years at the time of
accident and minor daughter and aging parents and therefore,
there is no need to interfere with the judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal more particularly considering the
aspect that law recognizes grant of money as only mode of
nursing pain and suffering of the victim of road accident.
6. Having heard learned advocate for both the sides and
considering the fact, it is noticeable that from the very selfsame
accident, another MACP No.1125 of 1994 was filed before the
learned MACT, Kheda at Nadiad and issue of negligence has
been decided against the appellant - insurance company. Prior to
decision in the impugned judgment and award, this finding of
learned Tribunal has been accepted by the insurance company.
No appeal challenging the finding of negligence is made by
insurance company and therefore, principle of res judicata
operates from raising issue of negligence in this appeal.
7. It is true that learned Tribunal has taken up some strange
calculation system to award compensation. Deceased was
working in Railway as Gangman and was earning R.1527/- per
month at the time of road accident. Learned Tribunal has taken
Rs.6593/- which would have been salary of the deceased, if he
survived on the date of deciding claim petition and added both
figure and took average income of Rs.4060/- per month and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3932/2007 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses to calculate
dependency loss.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3932/2007 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
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.
9. In the present case, 26 years old lastly breathed living
behind 23 years widow and minor daughter and aging parents in
the end result of road accident. Their plight is unimaginable but
the law recognizes only mode of compensation to wipe out
sufferings, pain etc. by way of paying some money. In the case
on hand, the claimant has been granted compensation of
Rs.5,51,744/- with interest and this is value of life assessed by
learned Tribunal, more particularly for person who was sole
bread earner of family.
10. In view of above finding, this Court does not find that grant
of compensation is without jurisdiction and approach of
assessing compensation cannot be said to be illegal or incorrect
warranting interference of this Court. Merely there is some error
in calculation or adopting some different system of calculation, it
would not de-bar the claimants from getting compensation of
Rs.5,51,744/-.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal sans merits and
accordingly stands dismissed. Record and proceedings be send
back to the learned Tribunal concerned.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
