Gujarat High Court
Rituben Sunil Chandani vs Parasmal Mangilal on 30 January, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2017/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2017 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RITUBEN SUNIL CHANDANI & ORS.
Versus
PARASMAL MANGILAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 30/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants-
original claimants against the judgment and award dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2017/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
14.10.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.) & Additional Sessions Court, Vadodara in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.127 of 2003, wherein
and whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded the total
amount of Rs.15,93,680/- towards compensation with 7.5%
interest.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hiren M Modi for
the appellants-original claimants, learned advocate
Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati for respondent No.3 and learned
advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for respondent No.6.
3. Brief facts narrated in the present First Appeal
are as under:-
3.1 On 24.10.2002, in the morning at about 10.00
to 11.00 a.m., Sunilbhai Lakshman Chandani, was going
from Jodhpur to Byara (Rajasthan) in Tata Sumo bearing
Registration No.RJ-19-P-7207. When Tata Sumo reached
near village Bar, Dist. Pali (Rajasthan) at the time of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2017/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
overtaking a Trailer, it dashed with Truck bearing
registration No. RJ-14-G-8206, coming from opposite
direction, being driven by Opponent No.4 in excessive
speed. Sunilbhai Lakshman Chandani sustained serious
injuries, was taken to the hospital, where he was declared
dead.
3.2 The parents, wife and daughter of the deceased
filed a claim petition for compensation before the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara for Rs.1 crore.
Original Opponent Nos.1, 2 and 4 though served, remained
absent. Original Opponent No.3- United India Insurance
Company Ltd. appeared and filed Written statement at
Ex.33. After considering the oral as well as documentary
evidence, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition by awarding Rs.15,93,680/- with interest @ 7.5%
with cost on 14.10.2011 in favour of claimants.
3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2017/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
quantum of compensation, the appellants-original claimants
have filed the present appeal for enhancement of
compensation.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants - claimants
submitted that the compensation which has been awarded,
is on a lower side looking to the evidence on record. It is
submitted that the deceased was aged about 36 years and
was serving as a manager in a private company. It is
submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly arrived at
the conclusion by holding equal negligence i.e. 50%-50%
negligence of both the offending vehicles.
4.1 It is further submitted that however, the learned
Tribunal has erred in deducting income tax at 30% without
any material. It is submitted that looking to the nature of
service and income of the deceased at the time of
accident, which is established by the claimants, income tax
@ 10% can at the most be deducted from the income of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2017/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
deceased.
5. Per contra, learned advocates for the
respondents - Insurance Company has supported the
findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal and submitted
that in absence of any material to substantiate the
percentage of deduction of income tax, this Court may not
disturb the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties and also
considered the materials placed before us. So far as
question of negligence is concerned, there is no quarrel by
either sides. The only limited question which has been
raised by the appellants before us is with regard to the
deduction of income tax @ 30% i.e. Rs.5,512/- p.m. On
perusal of the impugned award, learned Tribunal has
deducted Rs.5,512/- p.m. from income of Rs.18,375/- p.m.
and has assessed the total income at Rs.12,863/- p.m. after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2017/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
deducting tax. Learned advocate for the appellants in his
submission has contended that the learned Tribunal has
also added percentage of Dearness Allowance while
calculating the percentage of income tax. In our opinion,
the learned Tribunal has erred in deducing income tax at
30% without any base and substance. The deduction of
1/3rd towards personal expenses is also required to be
modified as claimants are widow, minor daughter, father
and mother. Since there are 4 dependents, deduction of ¼
personal expenses would meet the ends of justice. We have
also observed that the learned Tribunal has not awarded
any amount under the head of loss of consortium which
the claimants are entitled to in view of the settled law.
7. So far as tax liability is concerned, as per Ex.51,
the salary was subjected to tax. In the absence of any
material to show that deceased was falling under the slab
of income whereby Income Tax @ 30% would be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2017/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
deducted, it would be in the fitness of things to deduct
10% as income tax from the salary of the deceased.
8. After considering the Panchnama, there is no
reason to interfere with the aspect of negligence. The
learned Tribunal has not erred in assessing the negligence
of both the offending vehicles, and we do not find it
appropriate to interfere in the findings of such fact.
9. We hold that the appellants-claimants are
entitled to the compensation as mentioned hereinbelow:-
Compensation
1 Dependancy Loss
Income Rs. 12,250/-
Prospective income 50% Rs. 6,125/-
Total Rs. 18,375/-
Less-income Tax 10%, Rs. 1,837/-
Total Rs. 16,538/-
Deduction of Towards Rs. 4,135/-
Personal Expenses ¼
Total Rs. 12,403/-
X12
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2017/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
Rs. 1,48,836/-
X 15
Total Rs.22,32,540/-
2. Loss of Consortium
Spouse Rs. 48,400/-
Filial Rs. 96,800/-
Parental Rs. 48,400/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
Grant Total Rs.24,62,440/-
- Awarded amount by the Rs.15,93,680/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs. 8,68,760/-
Rate of interest 7.5%
10. For the reasons recorded above, following order
is passed.
10.1 The appellants-original claimants are entitled to
enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.8,68,760/- @
7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till
realization from present respondents-Insurance Company.
10.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation with interest as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2017/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
above within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
10.3 The present First Appeal is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 14.10.2011 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) &
Additional Sessions Court, Vadodara in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.127 of 2003, is modified to the aforesaid
extent. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Court/Tribunal.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
