Gujarat High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. ... vs Bhavuben Veljibhai Gohil on 31 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3547/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3547 of 2024
==========================================================
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
BHAVUBEN VELJIBHAI GOHIL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GAURANG K CHAUHAN(9858) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 31/01/2025
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 12.4.2024 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.265 of 2022.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the appellant
and learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the respondents - original
claimants.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant referring to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Meena Devi Vs.
Nanu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others, (2023) 1
SCC 204, would submit that in the present case, 17 years old
person has expired and he since not major, cannot be depending
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3547/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
upon her employment. He would further submit that in the case
on hand, the learned Tribunal for a person of 17 years old
adopted income of Rs.9000/- without any application and
granted excessive amount of compensation. He would further
submit that since there is no iota of evidence to prove that the
deceased was working at the relevant time, taking up of
Rs.9000/- is monthly income of the claimant is totally erroneous
approach on the part of the learned Tribunal. Mainly upon
above submission, Learned advocate for the appellant prays to
allow the First Appeal and to recompute the amount of
compensation.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the claimants referring to
Exhs.41 and 42 would submit that the claimants have examined
Mr. Bholabhai Gohil at Exh.41 who has deposed that the
deceased was working on contract basis and doing work of
applying blocks on the earth and was earning Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.12,000/- per month, whereas another person employed for
same work was earning Rs.9000/- per month. Exh.42 is the
certificate issued by said Mr. Bholabhai. These two evidence
have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the claimants
to sustain the impugned judgment and award.
5. What could be noticed from the rival submissions of both
the sides and appreciating evidence on record, the deceased was
17 years six months and six days old at the time of road accident
and he is hailing from remote place of district Bhavnagar.
According to the deposition of Work Contractor at Exh.41, the
deceased was doing work of applying blocks on the earth. The
Work Contractor has also issued certificate at Exh.42, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3547/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
indicates that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.12,000/- per month. Looking to his age and potentiality and
considering the fact that he was doing work of applying blocks
on the earth, could not be ignored while assessing just and fair
compensation. Thus, reliance placed by the learned advocate for
the appellant in case of Meena Devi (supra) cannot render any
help to the arguments of learned advocate for the appellant.
6. In the present case, accident took placed on 7.6.2022 and
the rate of minimum wage at that time was Rs.9783/- per month
for the skilled labourer. The learned Tribunal however, has
assessed income of the deceased at Rs.9000/- per month. At
this juncture, I may refer para 10.1 and 11 of the impugned
judgment and award, whereby, the learned Tribunal has
discussed the reason for adopting income of Rs.9000/- per
month for the deceased, which reads as under:-
"10.1 Now, going through the cross-examination of the
claimant No.1, In his cross-examination he has
admitted that it is true that they have not produced any
evidence on record showing that the salary of his son
was deposited either in cash or in his account. It is also
pertinent to note that the claimants have also not
produced any other documents showing the monthly
income of the deceased. Hence, the oral evidence of
father and employer of the deceased do not inspire this
Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the deceased
was earning such amount as claimed by the claimants.
However, considering the age, nature of work and
standard of living of the claimants, if the Income of the
deceased is assessed, as Rs.9000/- p.m., then it would
be just and proper. Therefore, I hold the Income of the
deceased as Rs.9,000/- p.m. and Rs. 1,08,000/- p.a.
11. So far as age of the deceased is concerned, in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3547/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
School Leaving Certificate (Exh.57) date of birth of
deceased is mentioned as 01-06-2005. Accident
occurred 07-06-2022. Therefore, it is clear that at the
time of accident, the age of the deceased was 17 years
and 06 days. Hence, the deceased would fall under the
age group 15 to 20 and, therefore the claimants would
be entitled to get compensation calculated on the basis
of multiplier of 18."
7. Perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal for
adopting income of Rs.9000/- per month of the deceased aged
17 years old on a cusp of being major, I find no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and award.
8. Accordingly, present First Appeal fails and stands rejected
at admission stage exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 11 of
the CPC.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
