Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Naynaben Nareshkumar @ Narharibhai ... on 21 January, 2014
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
C/FA/4808/2008 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4808 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
================================================================
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, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD....Appellant(s)
Versus
NAYNABEN NARESHKUMAR @ NARHARIBHAI RAMANBHAI LIMBACHIYA
& 4....Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJNI H MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 - 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4 - 5
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 21/01/2014
Page 1 of 7
C/FA/4808/2008 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at the instance of the Insurance Company, is directed against the judgement and award dated 8th August, 2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No.4, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No.595 of 2000.
2. The claimants-respondents No.1 to 3 are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Nareshbhai alias Narharibhai Ramanbhai Limbachiya. The respondent No.1 is the widow, the respondent No.2 is the minor son and the respondent No.3 is the father of the deceased Nareshbhai.
3. The facts of the case are that on 13.05.2000, deceased Sanjaykumar was going on a scooter bearing registration No.GJ-16-A5899, along with one Nareshbhai as a pillion rider and when they reached near Bhagyodaya Timber, GIDC, Ankleshwar, a truck bearing registration No.GRV 5722 which was being driven if full speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the driver truck dashed with the scooter, as a result whereof, both Sanjaykumar and Nareshkumar were thrown on the road and on account of the grievous injuries sustained by him, Sanjaykumar died on the spot and the pillion rider viz. Nareshkumar was admitted in the New Civil Hospital, Surat, where he succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment. The respondents No.1, 2, and 3 who are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Nareshbhai, therefore, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation Page 2 of 7 C/FA/4808/2008 JUDGMENT of Rs.12,00,000/- (rupees twelve lakhs) with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident has been occurred on account of the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and awarded compensation of Rs.6,62,000/- to the claimants with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The compensation was awarded under the following heads:
Dependency and future loss of Rs.6,24,000/-
income Loss of expectation of life Rs. 20,000/- Loss of consortium. Rs 15,000/- Funeral charges Rs. 2,000/- Transportation charges Rs. 1,000/- Total compensation Rs.6,62,000/-
4. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company is in appeal.
5. Mr. Rajni Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the offending truck was solely negligent despite the fact that the negligence on the part of scooter driver was more than that of the truck driver. It was submitted that the Tribunal had erred in adding 50% of the notional income and computing the future prospective income in the absence of any evidence in this regard. The compensation of Rs.6,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is, therefore, highly excessive and deserves to be reduced.
6. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Kashyap Joshi, learned advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4 supported the Page 3 of 7 C/FA/4808/2008 JUDGMENT impugned judgement and award and submitted that the Tribunal has, after duly appreciating the evidence on record, awarded what in its opinion was just compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal being in conformity with the evidence on record does not warrant interference.
7. This Court has perused the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal as well as the evidence on record.
8. As can be seen from the impugned judgement and award, the Tribunal has found that in respect of the accident in question, a first information report came to be lodged by one Somabhai Narsinhbhai, who happened to be the Sarpanch of village Sarangpur and was an eye-witness to the incident. He has stated that when he was passing through the Sarangpur -
Ankleshwar road, two persons were going ahead of him on a Vespa scooter, when a truck which was being driven with excessive speed and in a rash, negligent and dangerous manner came from Ankleshwar side and dashed with the scooter. Due to the accident, the scooterist died on the spot and the pillion rider sustained serious injuries on his head and all over his body. Sparks emitted from the scooter and it was burnt. The driver of the truck fled from the scene of the accident. The Tribunal was accordingly of the view that there was no reason to disbelieve the version given by the eye witness. The Tribunal also found that the panchnama of the scene of offence mirrored the entire accident and made it clear that the accident had occurred on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the truck driver. Thus the Tribunal has based its findings on the question of negligence on the Page 4 of 7 C/FA/4808/2008 JUDGMENT basis of the evidence on record. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out any material on record to show that the Tribunal has failed to consider the relevant material or that it has considered any material which was not on record so as to dislodge the findings recorded by it. In the circumstances, in the absence of any perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is not possible to state that the accident had been caused partly on account of the negligence of the scooterist.
9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, it had been submitted that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal has, after appreciating the evidence on record, come to the conclusion that the deceased must have been earning about Rs.4,000/- per month. The Tribunal thereafter computed the prospective income at Rs.6,000/- per month and deducting one-third towards the amount the deceased would have spent after himself for his upkeep, computed monthly dependency at Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased being 23 years at the time of accident and therefore, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 for determining future dependency and awarded a sum of Rs.6,24,000/- towards dependency and future loss of income to the claimants. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges. Thus, the Tribunal has, in all, awarded compensation of Rs.6,62,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Page 5 of 7C/FA/4808/2008 JUDGMENT
10. From the impugned judgement and award, it is apparent that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads are quite conservative. The dependency and future loss of income has been awarded by the Tribunal by adopting a multiplier of 13 though the deceased was believed to be 23 years of age at the time of accident. Hence on the contrary, the compensation is lower if considered in the light of the recent decisions of this court which lay down that in case where the age of the deceased is between 21 to 25 years a multiplier of 18 is required to be applied. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to state that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is, in any manner, excessive, as is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant.
11. In the above view of the matter, in the absence of any infirmity in the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal, there is no warrant for interference by this Court. The appeal being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. It appears that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the appellant had deposited the entire awarded amount, along with interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal. Out of the said amount, vide order dated 18.03.2009, the Court had directed that 10% of the deposited amount with proportionate interest and costs shall be given to the respondents No.1 to 3 (claimants) in proportion to their shares on proper identification. The remaining 90% of the amount was ordered to be invested in a cumulative fixed deposit with any nationalized bank, initially for a period of five Page 6 of 7 C/FA/4808/2008 JUDGMENT years and to be renewed for a further period of three years if the appeals were not disposed of. However, the interest accruing on the said deposit was ordered to be given to the claimants in proportion to their shares by account payee cheque on proper identification. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders for disbursement of the remainder amount to the original claimants in terms of the award passed by it.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) parmar* Page 7 of 7