Gujarat High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs Batuksinh Fatehsinh Jadeja Since Decd. ... on 2 December, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5362 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
BATUKSINH FATEHSINH JADEJA SINCE DECD. THROUGH HEIRS &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BHAVESH J PATEL(6801) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.2
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 02/12/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and award dated 02.05.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux). Gandhidham-Kutch in MACP No.266/05, whereby, a sum of Rs.16,04,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment is awarded to the present respondents Nos.1 to 3 (original applicants) as compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the present appellant is held jointly and severally liable for payment of the 50% said sum, the Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined present appellant has preferred the present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The short facts of the case are that on 15/6/2005 while deceased Batuksinh was proceeding in Maruti Zen Car from Mandvi to Kotda Nayani at while she reached near Amarnagar and Bharatgam situated in the middle of the Morbi-Kandla National High Way one truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-T-8681 was parked in the middle of the road without signal or indicator and in violation of the road regulation. Therefore, deceased who could not notice the parked truck dashed with the said truck and ultimately succumbed to the death. FIR being CR No.89 of 2005 came to be registered before the Morbi Taluka Police Station.
2.1 The heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% and the tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence has passed the judgment and award as referred in paragraph 1 of this judgment which has given rise to this appeal at the behest of the insurance company.
3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
4. Leaned Advocate Mr.Ninad Shah for Ms.Raol, learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company has challenged the impugned judgment and award mainly the order of fastening the liability of the appellant to pay compensation of the negligence of the deceased who was driver of the Maruti Car on the ground that tribunal assessed the negligence of the Maruti Car driver and driver of the truck i.e. two errant vehicles are involved in the road accident in equal proportion yet, the Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined insurance company of the Maruti Car has been held liable to pay the compensation to the extent of the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Car being deceased. He would further submit that in the present case deceased after borrowing car from his brother was riding it on unfortunate day and when he reached near Amarnagar-Bharatgam the truck was parked in the middle of the road without keeping any signal or indicator and deceased ran Maruti Car on the truck from behind and received the fatal injuries. He would further submit that tribunal after assessing the situation of the road accident came to the conclusion that driver of the truck and Maruti Car are equally negligent in causing the road accident and after recording the same the tribunal fastened the liability upon the appellant insurance company who is insurer of the Maruti Car and thereby committed gross error in paying the compensation equal to the negligence of the Maruti Car driver i.e. deceased. He would further submit that car was owned by real brother of the deceased and as such he was stepping into the shoes of the owner. It is further submitted that since the deceased was stepping into the shoes of the owner, he cannot be treated as third party and cannot get the compensation from the insurance company of the Maruti Car viz-a-viz insurance company cannot be made liable to pay compensation to legal representative of the person who stepped in shoes of the owner.
4.1 Leaned Advocate Mr.Ninad Shah for the appellant - insurance company would submit that since deceased was serving as PI in Police Department at relevant point of time it is clear that he is not paid driver of owner of the car and therefore even on that ground the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He would submit that despite this defence has been raised in the written statement, for which the issue no.3 was also framed but the learned tribunal without discussing on the legal aspect of this defeence held the insurance company liable Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined equally and thereby committed serious error in passing the impugned judgment and award.
4.2 In support of his contentions, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon following decisions:
1. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ashalata Bhowmik & Ors., [(2018) 9 SCC 801]. (Paragraph 7 to 9).
2. Ningamma & Anr., vs. United India Insurance Company Limited [(2009) 13 SCC 710]. (Paragraph 19, 21, 25 and 33).
3. Ramkhiladi & Anr., vs. United India Insurance Company & Another [(2020) 2 SCC 550]. (Paragraph 9.3).
4.3 By making above submissions, he would submit to allow this appeal and to exonerate the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Bhavesh Patel appearing for the org. claimants would submit that tribunal committed no error in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation equal to the negligence of the driver of the truck, as premium of the driver of the Maruti Car was charged from the insured by the insurer and therefore in view of settled principle of law that since risk of the driver of the vehicle had been insured by taking premium insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the negligent of that driver. He would further submit that it is incorrect to say that deceased was steeping into the shoes of the owner on the ground that he is real brother of the owner of the car. He would further submit that this kind of presumption is not permissible under the law.Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined 5.1 He would further submit that though the claimants have not filed the cross objection for enhancement of the claim amount, looking to the computation of the income of compensation, since the tribunal which ought to have arrived at just, fair and equitable compensation, failed to pass appropriate award, amount of compensation needed to be rationalized. He would further submit that deceased was serving as PI at the relevant time and as per his salary slip he was drawing salary of Rs.15,746/- and thus tribunal committed error in taking monthly salary of deceased at Rs.8,466/- after deducting statutory deduction. He would submit that tribunal has adopted unknown procedure to calculate the compensation which is required to be granted as per decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., [(2017) 16 SCC 680].
5.2 By making above submissions, he would submit to modify the award and to pass appropriate order.
6. Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for respondent no.4 would submit to pass order considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The principal argument of learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company is that deceased was real brother of owner of the maruti car and therefore he is stepping into the shoes of the owner and therefore cannot claim for compensation from its own insurance company. Simultaneously, since deceased was not the third party, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. One more argument was canvassed that deceased was not paid driver but since was real brother of owner of the vehicle, his risk is not covered, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the negligence of the deceased.
Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined
8. To meet with the above arguments, let first refer to the schedule of the policy which is placed on record.
"SCHEDULE OF THE PREMIUM Own Damage Liability Basic Own 10137 Basic Third Party 500 Damage Liability PA Cover for Owner- 100 Drive of Rs. 200000 each PA Cover for 5 Passenger 250 of Rs. 200000 each Less 0 LL to Driver for 1-4 driver 25 Bonus Total Own 10137 Total Act Premium 875 Damage Premium Total Premium 11012 Special Discount 0 Additional Loading Net Premium 11011 *** All Premium Service tax 1124 Figures are in Rupees Final Premium Rs. 12135 Geographical Area India Compulsory Deductibile Rs.500 Previous Policy No.- Expired on 30-DEC-99."
9. It is apparent that premium of Rs.25/- has been charged towards the legal liability of the driver. The driver has been defined in the policy itself which reads thus:
"DRIVER:
Any person including the insured Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined hot disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989."
10. The definition which the appellant has itself given in the policy start with the word "any person including the insured". The use of the word "including" in the definition shows the nature as inclusive definition. It does not de-mark the nature and status of the driver. The driver may be real brother of the owner of the vehicle; but condition is that he should possess the effective driving licence on the date of road accident to fasten of the liability on the insurance company. The licence of the deceased was produced at Exh.43 which shows that he was possessing LMV licence upto the period 07/11/2006 whilst the accident took place on 15/06/2005. Thus, admittedly, on the date of road accident he was authorized to drive the LMV including the Maruti Car.
11. In Road Traffic Act, 1988, ap1 applicable in UK but the term "driver" has been defined as.
"driver", where a separate person acts as a steersman of a motor vehicle, includes (except for the purposes of section 1 of this Act) that person as well as any other person engaged in the driving of the vehicle, and "drive" is to be interpreted accordingly,"
12. In Black's Law Dictionary, the term driver is defined as under:
"driver. A person who steers and propels a vehicle."Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined
13. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Deluxe edition, the term driver defines as under:
"driver A person who drives a vehicle."
14. Section 2(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the definition of driver as under:
"driver" includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle;"
15. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the person who act as steered man of the drawn vehicle or the person who propel the vehicle and sit on the steering as driver includes within the meaning of driver. Therefore, the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that deceased cannot be said to be driver has no legs to stand.
16. Another submissions of learned advocate for the appellant that deceased being brother of the owner of the errant car stepped into the shoes of the owner; hence not entitled to claim compensation. In regard to this submission and for that purpose let refer to the definition of "owner" as prescribed in Section 2(30) of the MV Act.
"owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;"
17. On plain reading of the above provision, abundantly it would be Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined clear that a person in whose name the vehicle stands registered is the person who can be said to be owner of the vehicle. Any other reading of the term "owner" and term "driver" would defeat purpose of the legislative intent. Merely, because the deceased was real brother of the owner of the maruti car and driving it at the relevant time could not be treated him as owner of the vehicle. The driver means the person who propels the vehicle and in the present case the deceased was propelling the vehicle at the relevant time and was sitting on the steering and thus he should be treated as driver. Admittedly, the owner who is respondent no.4, his name stands in the record of the RTO as owner of the vehicle involved in the road accident. This Court fails to understand as to under which proportion learned advocate for the appellant submitting that since the deceased was riding the car owned by his brother, he has stepped into the shoes of the owner. Such an argument on the part of learned advocate for the appellant is completely in contrast to the legal definition of "driver" and "owner" and therefore cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
18. In Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) wd/o Late Laxmanbhai Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) vs. Kandla Dock Labour Board [2022 (1) GLR 440], three Judge Bench of this Court has held that in paragraph 13 and 15 as under:
"13. Thus, when the owner of a vehicle pay additional premium and same is accepted by the Insurance Company, liability of the Insurance Company gets extended under the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 147 of the Act clearly prescribes for statutory liability to cover risk of paid Driver and Conductor under the Insurance Policy, which is a matter of contract. On payment of such additional premium by the owner, the liability of the owner shifts upon the Insurance Company. Thus, the risk of paid Driver and Conductor would be covered under the Insurance Policy. Only Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined when the additional premium is not paid, liability would be as per the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and in such cases, compensation would be computed as prescribed under the Act which is limited to the extent provided under provisions of the Act. However, when owner pays additional premium to cover the legal liability of his paid driver and conductor to the Insurance Company, as such, the Insurance Company is enlarging the scope for unlimited liability for payment of compensation, when additional premium is accepted. The liability of the Insurance Company gets extended and it has no right to raise issue of self negligence or otherwise of the such class of the driver of the Insured vehicle. By accepting additional premium as per the IMT 28, the Insurance Company expressed its willingness to extend its liability under the Clause of Legal Liability to the Paid driver and conductor as envisaged under Section 147 of the Act. Thus, in our opinion, Insurance Company has no legal right to avoid its legal liability under the indemnity clause arising from the contract of insurance towards the insured - owner of such classes of vehicles.
xxx xxx xxx
15. In our opinion, by accepting additional premium, the Insurance Company indemnifies the owners for paid Driver and / or Conductor and risk of Driver / Conductor is covered under it. Upon death or injury caused to the paid Driver and / or Conductor, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy such claim irrespective of the self negligence. Thus, the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya & Anr (supra) lays down the correct law. Reference is thus, red accordingly."Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined
19. The schedule of the policy as referred herein above indicates that insurance company has charged the premium of Rs.25/- to the legal liability of the driver and the driver is also defined in the policy and therefore if the driver suffered any injury or succumbed to it, the insurance company since charged the premium for his liability or indemnify the liability of owner towards the negligence attributed to the driver of the Maruti Car and owe to pay the compensation. Thus, the solitary argument canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant that for negligence of driver, owner and insurance company would not be responsible to pay compensation does not survive and stands rejected.
20. Insofar as the reliance placed upon the decision by the learned advocate for the appellant is concerned, the facts of the case herein is different and therefore the same would not be made applicable and not discussed herein.
21. Another issue arises as to whether in absence of any cross- objection or cross appeal on behalf of the claimant, whether in the appeal filed by the insurance company the appellate Court can enhance the compensation granted by the tribunal. O.41 R.31 of CPC r/w O.41 R.22 read with decision in case of Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate Versus Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav [2021 (16) SCC 467] would rescue the situation. Needless to say that principle of just and fair compensation applies at every stage of proceedings. The duty is casted upon the MACT to assess, calculate and grant just and fair compensation at every stage regardless of filing of appeal. Therefore, it is clear that even in absence of cross-objection or cross appeal the appellate Court holds jurisdiction to enhance the compensation.
Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined
22. In Kavita Balothiya vs. Santosh Kumar [2024 (0) ACJ 1639] the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no restriction upon the Court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed and it is the duty of the tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the MV Act, to award just compensation. Paragraph 5 and 6 thereof reads thus:
"5. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice the decision of this Court in Mona Baghel &ors. vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav & Ors. in (Civil Appeal @ out of SLP(C) NO.29207/2018 wherein the Court has observed as under:
"The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value.
Our view, is fortified by the decision of this Court in the Case of Ramla and Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited and Others 2019 2 SCC 192, wherein, it is held as under:
"Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award just compensation. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A just compensation is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The Courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. (See the Judgments of this Court in (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,
(b) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (c) Ibrahim v. Raju)"
6. The above decision clearly lays down that there is no restriction upon the court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed. It is the duty of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to award just compensation. Since the Act is a beneficial legislation a just compensation is one which is fair and reasonable on the basis of the evidence adduced irrespective of the amount claimed."
23. In Chandra Mani Nanda vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr., [2024 INSC 777] the Hon'ble Apex Court has again reiterated the ratio that it is the duty of the Court to assess the fair compensation and in paragraph 20 has held as under:
"20. An argument is raised by learned counsel for the insurance company that the appellant has initially claimed a sum of 230,00,000/- and since the same having been awarded to him by the High Court, no further enhancement is possible. We cannot accept this argument and it is duly rejected. It is a settled proportion of law, that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. It is the duty of the Court to assess fair compensation. Rough Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined calculation made by the claimant is not a bar or the upper limit. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto".
24. Applying the ratio as stated herein above, there is no bar in granting compensation to the claimant under the doctrine of just, fair and equitable compensation even in absence of cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation. The Court cannot oblivious to its duty to assess the just and fair compensation which should be equitable and adequate to meet with the pain of the victim of the road accident.
25. In the present case, the deceased was working as PI at the relevant time and his gross pay including various allowance comes to Rs.15,746/- as can be seen from the salary slip for the month of May, 2005 just before the accident; out of which professional tax Rs.80/- is deducted and it comes to Rs.15,666/- as monthly income of the deceased. In case of Kavita Nagar & Ors Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., rendered in Civil Appeal No(S). Of 2024 (arising Out Of Slp(Civil) No. 15643/2016), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held even in case of fixed salaried person, loss of future prospect is required to be granted and held in paragraph 13 and 14 as under:
"13. In motor accident claim cases, it is imperative to consider the future aspects of a person's earning potential when determining compensation. Simply focusing on a deceased individual's current income at the time of death disregards the natural progression of a career or the intrinsic motivation to improve one's financial position over time. Both self-employed individuals and those on fixed salaries strive to increase their earnings, adapting to economic changes such as inflation and the cost of living. While Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined individuals on a fixed salary may appear to have a predictable income, this view overlooks the reality that salaries, even for employees in permanent positions, generally increase over time due to factors like inflation, promotions, and company policies. For instance, a government employee or someone in the private sector with a fixed salary may still receive annual increments, benefits, or adjustments based on performance, seniority, or pay revisions. These incremental increases reflect the natural progression of a p e r s o n ' s c a r e e r a n d t h e a d j u s t m e n t t o c o s t - o f - living changes, making it unjust to disregard future earning potential simply because an individual receives a fixed salary. Similarly, those who are self-employed, though lacking the certainty of a regular salary, are still motivated to grow their income to maintain their standard of living in an ever-changing economy. The view expressed in National Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra),rightly emphasizes that failing to account for these dynamics creates a distorted view, where individuals in self-
employment or fixed-income roles are presumed to have a stagnant earning potential. This outlook is fundamentally flawed because it negates the drive for income growth, which is inherent to human ambition and sustenance.
14. The need to factor in future prospects when determining compensation becomes even clearer and more pressing when considering the basic human drive to sustain and improve one's life. A self-employed individual, just like someone on a fixed salary, strives to increase their income to meet growing expenses and to adapt to changing circumstances. This is particularly important when considering the purchasing p o w e r and q u a l i t y o f l i f e , w h i c h t e n d t o increase as a person's Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined career progresses. The notion that a self-employed person's income will remain static is flawed, as they, too, make efforts to raise their fees or charges to keep pace with inflation and market demands. For instance, someone working in a government role or another fixed-income job might receive annual salary adjustments or benefits, reflecting a growth trajectory over time. Similarly, a self-employed professional--such as a doctor, lawyer, or small business owner--will often increase fees or expand services to keep pace with rising costs. Recognizing these future prospects ensures a fair and just compensation by aligning with real-world economic dynamics, which Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeks to uphold."
26. In the present case, as can be seen from the driving licence his date of birth is 03/03/1951 and accident took place on 15/06/2005. Thus the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident. As per the salary slip of the deceased, at the time of accident, the income of the deceased was Rs.15,666/- after deducting Rs.80/- towards the professional tax. Now, after deducting one-third towards the personal and pocket expenses and counting 15% of future loss of income therein, it would come to Rs.1,567/- and thus total income comes to Rs.12,017/-. As noted herein above, the age of the deceased was 54 years, applicable multiplier would be of 11 and thus total loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,86,244/-. Likewise, applying decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the amount granted under the head of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is also required to be enhanced.
27. Notably, approach of the learned tribunal in assuming the computation of the compensation is niggard and conservative it is needed Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined to be recomputed. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency: 15,86,244/-
(Rs.15,666/- (-) one-third towards personal and pocket expenses (x) 12 (+) 15% future prospect and
(x) 11 multiplier.
Loss of consortium total three persons 1,45,200/-
(Rs.48,400 x 3)
Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses 36,300/-
(Rs.18,150/- each)
Total 17,67,744/-
Already awarded by the tribunal 16,04,000/-
Enhanced amount of compensation 1,63,744/-
28. Therefore, I hold that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and claimants are entitled to get the total amount of compensation of Rs.17,67,744/- /- with 8% 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.
29. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant - insurance company - org. opponent no.5 is dismissed. Both the insurance companies are held liable to pay the compensation of enhanced amount of Rs.1,63,744/-with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The insurance companies are directed to deposit Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5362/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2024 undefined the amount of compensation with interest and costs within six weeks from today including the interest and costs. The ratio of negligence assessed by the tribunal is maintained.
30. Upon such deposit, 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, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure and as per the apportionment fixed by the tribunal.
31. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. If order of apportionment is not made by the tribunal, it shall be made while disbursing the amount of compensation.
32. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) sompura Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Dec 10 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:10:13 IST 2024