Gujarat High Court
Bhavnaben Wd/O Pravinbhai Naranbhai ... vs Not Mension on 27 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4552/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4552 of 2023
==========================================================
BHAVNABEN WD/O PRAVINBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
NOT MENSION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR KARMANYASINGH V RORE(10920) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 27/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - original
claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and award dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Arvalli at Modasa in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.359 of 2013 (Old MACP No.1647 of 2001).
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 On 08.09.2001, deceased Pravinbhai and deceased
Rajnikant were going towards village Jashvantpurakampa riding
Motorcycle No.GJ-090D-7094. When they reached near the place
of accident, one ST Bus No.GJ-18-V-5309 came in rash and
negligent manner and dashed motorcycle, as a result, Pravinbhai
sustained serious injuries and succumbed to injuries.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4552/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has
submitted that learned Tribunal did not consider Exh.46 as well
as extract of village form while taking income of the deceased at
Rs.2200/- per month. It is submitted that deceased was co-
owner of the agricultural land ad-measuring 26 Acre and also
sold agricultural produce in tune of Rs.7,99,744/- . It is
submitted that this figure and evidence has gone in vain, learned
Tribunal without assigning any reasons, taken up Rs.2200/- as
monthly income of the deceased to calculate dependency loss.
Secondly, it is submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have
granted compensation under loss of consortium to each of the
claimants, instead learned Tribunal has granted Rs.40,000/-
and therefore, it is submitted to correct the award, so far as both
the submission are concerned.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Rore for the respondent - GSRTC
submitted to pass necessary order in the given facts and
circumstances of the case.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4552/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
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
claimant. 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. Perusal of evidence on record indicates that deceased
Pravinbhai was agriculturist and was possessing 26 Acre
agricultural land in village Ramos, Kabodara and Jashvantpura,
Taluka Dhansura. Exh.46 indicates income by selling
agricultural produce of Rs.7,99,744/-. However, this figure
cannot directly held the claimant to set his income. What could
be perused that deceased was having agricultural land along
with his brother and therefore, taking the aspect that family of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4552/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
the claimant lost supervisory skill of the claimant, I fix
Rs.4000/- per month as income of the deceased and add 40%
towards future prospects. Deceased was between 31 to 35 years
and therefore, multiplier of 16 is applied to calculate loss of
future earning and future prospects. Deceased is survived by
five claimants and therefore, 1/4th is to be deducted towards
personal expenses. Claimant no.1 is widow, claimant nos.2 and
3 are children and claimant nos.4 and 5 are parents of the
deceased. Claimant nos.4 and 5 are expired during pendency of
the claim petition, however, they were alive at the time of road
accident which snatched life of deceased. Therefore, all the
claimants are entitled to compensation under loss of consortium
individually at Rs.48,400/-. Loss of estate and funeral expenses
at Rs.18,150/- each is granted in view of judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
v/s. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680].
7. In para 7.5, learned Tribunal has assessed contributory
negligence of deceased to tune of 10%. It is maintained.
8. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 8,06,400/-
Rs.4000/- per month + 40% rise = Rs.5600/-
and deducting 1/4th i.e. Rs.1400/-, the
amount would be Rs.4200/- and applying 16
multiplier, the amount would be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4552/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
Rs.8,06,400/-
Loss of consortium Rs.48,400/- x 5 2,42,000/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Funeral expenses 18,150/-
Total... 10,84,700/-
Less : Amount which is already awarded 4,64,368/-
Additional amount which is awarded 6,20,332/-
Less : 10% negligence of the claimant 62,033/-
Additional amount to be awarded 5,58,299/-
9. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled to get the
enhanced compensation of Rs.5,58,299/- 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.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
10.1 The present appeal is partly allowed.
10.2 The ST Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced
amount Rs.5,58,299/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of
claim petition till its realization before the concerned Tribunal,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
10.3 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 claimant, by account payee cheque /
NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4552/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
10.4 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
10.5 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
