Gujarat High Court
Heirs Of Deceased Sandipbhai ... vs Shantilal D Patel on 9 May, 2019
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/3311/2011 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3311 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
=========================================================
=
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
HEIRS OF DECEASED SANDIPBHAI RAMESHBHAI PATEL, RAMESHBHAI
& 1 other(s)
Versus
SHANTILAL D PATEL & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYESH V PATEL(5925) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 09/05/2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Tejas P. Satta, for Mr. Jayesh V. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants - original claimants. Though served, no one appears for respondent No.1. As per the order dated 07.05.2019 passed by this Court, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel has received instructions to appear for and on behalf of respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, who shall file his Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 16:29:08 IST 2019 C/FA/3311/2011 JUDGMENT Vakatalnama during the course of the day. Registry to accept his Vakalatnama. Perused the original record and proceedings.
2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 31.07.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fast Track Court No.5, Mehsana, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.395/2006, the appellants - original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short);
3. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal: 3.1 That the deceased - Sandipbhai Rameshbhai Patel was serving in Satyam Construction Company as an engineer and for the company's work, on 30.04.2006, the deceased along with other employees of the company were going in Jeep bearing registration NO.GJ8D7420 from Deesa to Radhanpur and during that time, the driver of the said jeep lost his control over the steering and dashed with one unknown vehicle, which was coming from the opposite direction. In the said accident, the deceased and other passengers were died.
3.2 Therefore, the appellants being parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act and claimed Rs.10,00,000/, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,05,240/ along with 7.5 % p.a. Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 16:29:08 IST 2019 C/FA/3311/2011 JUDGMENT interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions:
(i) That the Tribunal has erred in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/ p.m even though the appellants had adduced evidence of Rameshbhai Patel at Exh:18 and also oral deposition of Shantibhai Devabhai Patel at Exh:24, who was the proprietor of Satyam Construction Company, in which the deceased was working.
(ii) That the Tribunal has erred in not granting any prospective income.
(iii) That the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 12 and according to learned counsel for the appellant, as the deceased was 21 years old on the date of accident, multiplier of 18 would be applicable.
(iv) That the Tribunal has erred in granting only 25,000/ as compensation under the conventional heads including funeral expenses, which should be enhanced to Rs.30,000/.
On the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the appellants submits that present appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned counsel has opposed this appeal and contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the deposition of Shantibhai Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 16:29:08 IST 2019 C/FA/3311/2011 JUDGMENT Devabhai Patel at Exh:24, who was proprietor of concern in which the deceased was working, had deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was being paid Rs.5,000/ p.m. He further contended that considering the date of accident being 30.04.2006, the Tribunal has committed no error in not granting any prospective income and according to Mr. Thakkar, the original claimants are not entitled to any prospective income. It was also contended that the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 12 and even the compensation under different conventional heads to the tune of Rs.25,000/ is just and proper, which does not require any alteration or modification by this Court.
On the aforementioned contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, present appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.
No other or further submissions have been made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and proceedings. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have relied upon the oral deposition of one of the claimants at Exh:18 and proprietor of Satyam Construction Company at Exh:24 and also the certificate at Exh:30. Cumulatively, reappreciating the said piece of evidence, the claimants have proved that income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/ p.m, which was in form of fixed salary and therefore, the Tribunal has committed no error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/ Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 16:29:08 IST 2019 C/FA/3311/2011 JUDGMENT p.m. However, considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, [2017 (16) SCC 680], the Tribunal has erred in not granting any prospective income. It clearly appears from the record of the appeal as well as the judgment itself that the Tribunal has observed that the age of the deceased was 21 years old on the date of accident. Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121], considering the age of the deceased being 21 years, multiplier of 18 would be applicable.
7. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants would be entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under:
Rs.5,000/ Income p.m
+ Rs.2,500/ 50 % future prospective income
Rs.7,500/
Rs.3,750 1/2th deduction towards personal
expenses
Rs.3,750/
X 12 Months
x 18 Multiplier
Rs.8,10,000/
8. As far as compensation under the conventional
heads is concerned, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants would be entitled to Rs.30,000/ under the conventional heads. Thus, the appellants would be entitled to get total compensation of Rs.8,40,000/.
Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 16:29:08 IST 2019C/FA/3311/2011 JUDGMENT
9. As the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,05,240/, the appellants would be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,34,760/ with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
10. Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 31.07.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fast Track Court No.5, Mehsana, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.395/2006 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.3,34,760/ before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
No order as to costs in this appeal.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J) S U C H I T Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 30 16:29:08 IST 2019