Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Diptiben Ureshbhai Vora & 3 on 22 January, 2016
Author: M.R.Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2188 of 2002
TO
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2195 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD....Appellant(s)
Versus
DIPTIBEN URESHBHAI VORA & 3....Defendant(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR AMAR N BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR SANDIP C SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 22/01/2016
Page 1 of 40
HC-NIC Page 1 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
1 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
CAV JUDGMENT
1.00. As common question of law and facts arise in this
group of appeals and as such arising out of the impugned
common Judgment and Award passed by the learned tribunal
and arising out of the same accident, all these appeals are
decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order.
2.00. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned common Judgment and Award passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary),
Dhrangadhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 233 to 236
of 1998, appellant herein - original opponent No.3 - United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. - insured - Insurance Company of the
Motor Truck bearing registration No. GTX-2584 has preferred
First Appeal Nos. 2188 to 2191 of 2002, contending inter-alia
that the respective claim petitions at the instance of the
original claimant, who was not dependent upon the respective
deceased, were not maintainable and therefore, the learned
tribunal has erred in entertaining and allowing the respective
claim petitions.
2.01. First Appeal No. 2192 to 2195 of 2002 are as such
Cross-Appeals being filed by the original claimant to enhance
the amount of compensation feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the impugned common Judgment and Award passed by
the learned tribunal in the aforesaid claim petitions.
3.00. Facts leading to the present First Appeals, in
nutshell, are as under:-
Page 2 of 40
HC-NIC Page 2 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
2 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
3.01. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 18/2/1992
between two vehicles namely Fiat Car bearing registration No.
GBW 1441, which at the relevant time was being driven by the
deceased Darpeshbhai Lalitbhai Banker and Motor Truck
bearing registration No. GTX 2584, near Village Malanpur, at
about 7:30 AM, all the occupants of the fiat car who were
belong to one family, sustained fatal injuries and died. One
Diptiben Ureshbhai Vora claiming to be heirs and legal
representative of all the deceased, who, as such, has been
residing and settled at USA since 1982 has filed respective
claim petitions before the learned tribunal claiming
compensation, more particularly filed Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.233 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.5 Lacs
for the death of Indiraben Lalitbhai Banker (mother of the
claimant); Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 234 of 1998
claiming compensation of Rs.9 Lacs for the death of Dipikaben
Darpeshbhai Banker (sister-in-law of the claimant); Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 235 of 1998 claiming compensation
of Rs.5 Lacs for the death of deceased Darpeshbhai Lalitbhai
Banker - driver of the Fiat Car (brother of the claimant) and
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 236 of 1998 claiming
compensation of Rs.5 Lacs for the death of deceased Lalitbhai
Manilal Banker (father of the claimant).
3.02. That all the claim petitions were opposed by the
appellant - original opponent No.3 - insurer - Insurance
Company of the Motor Truck involved in the accident by filing
Written Statement contending inter-alia that as the original
claimant has been settled in America since 1982 and was not
dependent upon the respective deceased, and therefore,
Page 3 of 40
HC-NIC Page 3 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
3 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
respective claim petitions were not maintainable. Therefore, it
was requested to dismiss the respective claim petitions.
3.03. The respective claim petitions were opposed on the
ground of negligence of the deceased Darpeshbhai Lalitbhai
Banker who was driving the Fiat Car. Alternatively it was also
pleaded that the accident was a head on collision and
therefore both the drivers should be held negligent equally.
3.04. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned
tribunal by impugned common judgement and order has partly
allowed the respective claim petitions as under :-
Sr. MACP No. Claimed Total compensation awarded
No. Amount (in Rs.).
(in Rs.)
1 233/1998 5,00,000 Yearly Income. Rs.18,000
Less 1/3 deduction. Rs.06,000
--------------
Total Rs.12,000
Multiplier of 8 X8
Total Rs.96,000
Plus
Loss of expectation
of life. Rs.10,000
Transportation &
funeral charges. Rs.05,000
--------------
Total Rs.1,11,000
======
Page 4 of 40
HC-NIC Page 4 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
4 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
2 234/1998 9,00,000 Yearly Income. Rs.51,360
Multiplier of 12 X12
--------------
Total Rs.6,16,320
Plus
Loss of expectation
of life. Rs.10,000
Transportation &
funeral charges. Rs.05,000
--------------
Total Rs.6,31,320
======
3 235/1998 5,00,000 Yearly Income. Rs.13,200
Multiplier of 12 X12
--------------
Total Rs.1,59,600
Plus
Loss of expectation
of life. Rs.10,000
Transportation &
funeral charges. Rs.05,000
-----------
Total
Rs.1,74,600
=====
4 236/1998 5,00,000 Yearly Income. Rs.36,000
Less 1/3 deduction. Rs.12,000
--------------
Total Rs.24,000
Multiplier of 8 X8
Total Rs.1,92,000
Plus
Loss of expectation
of life. Rs.10,000
Transportation &
funeral charges. Rs.05,000
-----------
Total Rs.2,07,000
======
3.05. That by the impugned common Judgment and
Award, the tribunal has also not accepted the case on behalf of
the appellant - Insurance Company that the original claimant
being not dependent on any of the deceased who lost their
lives and therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation.
Page 5 of 40
HC-NIC Page 5 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
5 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
While holding so, the learned tribunal has relied upon and
considered section 166(1)(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act and
also decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Versus
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, reported in 1987 (3) SCC 234.
3.06. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned common Judgment and Award passed by the
learned tribunal, both, appellant herein - original opponent
No.3 - Insurance Company as well as original claimant, have
preferred the present First Appeals.
First Appeal Nos.2188 to 2891 of 2002 :
4.00. Mr. Thomas, learned advocate has appeared for Mr.
V.P. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant - Insurance Company. He has vehemently submitted
that the learned tribunal has materially erred in holding the
respective claim petitions, at the instance of the original
claimant for the death of the respective deceased persons
traveling in the Fiat Car, maintainable.
4.01. Mr. Thomas, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellant - Insurance Company has further submitted
that the learned tribunal has materially erred in not
appreciating the fact that admittedly the original claimant was
not dependent upon any of the deceased. It is submitted that
it is an admitted position that the original claimant has married
and settled in USA since 1982 and was not residing with any
of the deceased persons and therefore, not dependent upon
any of the deceased persons and therefore, the respective
claim petitions, at the instance of the original claimant, who
Page 6 of 40
HC-NIC Page 6 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
6 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
was not dependent on any of the deceased persons to get
compensation for the death of the respective deceased
persons, were not maintainable.
It is submitted that, therefore, the learned tribunal
ought to have dismissed the respective claim petitions on the
aforesaid ground alone.
4.02. In support of his above submissions, Mr. Thomas,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant -
Insurance Company has heavily relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on the following decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court :-
(1) (2009) 6 SCC 121.
(2) 2006 (1) GLR 637.
(3) Unreported decision of this Court in the case of
Economic Transport Organization Versus Kena Pankaj
Patel and others, rendered in First Appeal No. 5182 of
1995 with First Appeal No. 6462 of 1995 (para 3.1).
(4) Unreported decision of this Court in the case of
Dilipbhai Guljibhai Gamit Versus Mahemmedbhai A.
Bardoliya and another, rendered in First Appeal No.6559 of
1999 with First Appeal No. 6560 of 1999.
4.03. In the alternative, it is submitted by Mr.Thomas,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant -
Insurance Company that even if it is held that being legal heirs
and legal representative, the respective claim petitions at the
instance of the original claimants were maintainable, in that
Page 7 of 40
HC-NIC Page 7 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
7 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
case also the original claimant shall not be entitled to any
amount under the head of loss of dependency, as after the
marriage she settled in USA since 1982 and not dependent on
any of the deceased persons and therefore, she is not entitled
to any amount towards loss of dependency.
4.04. In the alternative, it is further submitted by
Mr.Thomas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant that only that person is entitled to loss of
dependency who is dependent upon the victim / deceased
died in the accident and has suffered loss of dependency on
the death of a person on whom he/she was dependent. It is
submitted that in such a situation and case, such a claimant
would be entitled to only loss of estate and/or other amount
towards medical expenses etc. only.
4.05. It is further submitted by Mr.Thomas, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance
Company that in any case and even otherwise, the learned
tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of the truck
jointly and severally liable for the accident. It is submitted that
the manner in which the accident took place at 7.30 in the
morning and there was head on collision between two vehicles,
the learned tribunal ought to have held both the drivers
equally negligent.
Making above submissions, it is requested to allow
present appeals.
5.00. All these appeals preferred by the Insurance
Company are opposed by the learned advocate appearing on
Page 8 of 40
HC-NIC Page 8 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
8 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
behalf of the original claimants. It is vehemently submitted by
the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original
claimants that under the Motor Vehicles Act, all the heirs and
legal representatives of the victim of the accident are entitled
to prefer claim petition, irrespective of the fact that they are
financially dependent upon the victim or not. It is submitted
that in the present case, the claimants have a right to file
claim petition under section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles
Act read with section 50 of the Hindu Succession Act. Relying
upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as various High Courts including Gujarat High Courts it is
submitted that irrespective of the fact that the heir and legal
representative of the deceased/victim of the accident was
dependent upon the deceased or not, being heir and legal
representative, the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act
would be maintainable :-
(1) (2007) 10 SCC 643 (Manjuri Bera Versus Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd.);
(2) (2007) 10 SCC 715 (Hafizun Begam Versus Mohd. Ikram
Heque);
(3) AIR 2007 Chh 1007 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus
Jasinta Kujur);
(4) AIR 1977 Guj. 195 (Maghjibhai Khimji Versus Chaturbhai
Taljabhai);
(5) (1987) 3 SCC 234 (Gujarat State Road Transport Versus
Ramanbhai;
(6) AIR 1967 Mad. 123 Mohammed Habibullah Versus
Seethammal, and
(7) 2014 (1) Scale 645.
Page 9 of 40
HC-NIC Page 9 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
9 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
5.01. It is further submitted by the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the original claimant that even in the
case of Manjuri Bera (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court not
only has held that a legal representative who is not dependent
will be entitled to the compensation, quantum of which shall
not be less than the liability flowing from section 140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that therefore, in the
aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only
held that the claim petition by legal representative who is not
dependent would be maintainable but even such a legal
representative - claimant shall also be entitled to the
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
5.02. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the original claimant that in the case of Sarana
Das Versus Bhutnath Gorivi, reported in 2010 ACJ 401
(Calcutta), Calcutta High Court, after considering the various
decisions of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that
heirs and legal representatives of the victim can maintain an
application under section 166 of the Act irrespective of the
fact whether they are dependent upon the victim or not.
5.03. It is further submitted by the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the original claimant that even in the
case of Meghji Khimji Vira (supra), the Division Bench of this
Court has held that the claim application by brother and
nephew of the deceased who were legal representatives would
be maintainable. It is submitted that after holding so, the
Division Bench has awarded compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act to the brother and nephew of the deceased.
Page 10 of 40
HC-NIC Page 10 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
10 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
5.04. It is further submitted by the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the original claimant that the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meghji Khimji
Vira (supra), has been subsequently considered and approved
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai and others (supra). It is submitted that in the case
of Raman Prabhatbhai and others (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after considering the decision of this Court in
the case of Meghji Khimji Vira (supra), has observed and held
that the brother of a person, who died in a motor vehicle
accident is entitled to maintain a petition under section 110 of
the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased.
5.05. It is further submitted by the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the original claimant that even Madras
High Court in the case of Branch Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Sumathi and
others, reported in 2012 AAC 2965, after considering various
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various
High Courts on the point / issue has held that the legal
representatives ordinarily includes heirs as well as persons
who represent the estate of the deceased person or persons on
whom estate devolves on the death of an individual and
therefore, right of claim for compensation of any or all legal
representatives under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is
a legal right.
It is further submitted by the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the original claimant that in the
aforesaid decision, it is further observed and held that by the
Madras High Court that there could be still a case where there
Page 11 of 40
HC-NIC Page 11 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
11 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
is contribution of a portion of the income of the deceased to a
legal representative, who had preferred a claim and he/she
would not be wholly dependent on the income of the deceased.
It is submitted that, it is further observed that a limited loss of
contribution from the deceased would give rise to claim a
compensation by him under section 166 of the Act, though he
might not be wholly dependent as defined in section 2(1)(d) of
the Workmen Compensation Act.
It is further submitted in the aforesaid decision, it is
further observed and held by the Madras High Court that just
because a brother or sister is married, right to represent the
estate of the deceased is not taken away and therefore, claim
petition by such legal representative who may not be
dependent would still be maintainable for compensation under
the Motor Vehicles Act.
5.06. It is further submitted by the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the original claimant that even as per
section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, any legal heir and
representative of the victim of the accident would be entitled
to file a claim petition.
5.07. It is, therefore, submitted that to hold that any heir
and legal representative of the victim not dependent upon the
victim of the accident is not entitled to file claim petition would
tantamount to deny right to claim compensation under section
110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that
therefore, the learned tribunal has rightly awarded
compensation to the original claimant by holing that the claim
petitions at the instance of the original claimants for
Page 12 of 40
HC-NIC Page 12 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
12 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act were maintainable.
5.08. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon unreported
decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Transport
Organization passed in First Appeal No. 5182 of 1995 is
concerned, it is submitted that on facts, the said decision shall
not be applicable and/or of any assistance to the appellant.
By making above submissions and relying upon above
decisions, it is requested to dismiss the appeals preferred by
the Insurance Company.
6.00. Now, so far as the appeals preferred by the original
claimants to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by
the learned tribunal is concerned, it is submitted that in the
present case, the claimant lost her entire family i.e. father,
mother, brother and wife of the brother and therefore,
appropriate amount was required to be granted towards loss of
love and affection and mental shock and suffering to the
claimant. It is submitted that even while considering the future
loss of income / loss of dependency, the learned tribunal has
not applied proper multiplier. It is submitted that in the case of
death of the mother, the learned tribunal has applied
multiplier of 8, instead of 11 as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and
others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and
another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 S.C.
3104. It is submitted that similarly in the case of death of
sister-in-law, the learned tribunal ought to have applied
multiplier of 18, instead of 12 applied by the learned tribunal.
It is further submitted that in case of death of a brother, the
Page 13 of 40
HC-NIC Page 13 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
13 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
learned tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 17, instead
of 12 applied by the learned tribunal.
Making above submissions and relying upon above
decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it is requested to
allow the present appeals preferred by the original claimant
and enhance the amount of compensation.
7.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the respective parties at length.
7.01. Short but very interesting question of law posed for
consideration of this Court is, whether in a case where the
claimant who, as such, was not dependent upon the deceased
who died in a vehicular accident, but who is heir and legal
representative of the deceased can maintain claim petition
seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and if the
answer of the aforesaid question is in affirmative, under which
head and what amount of compensation, the claimant is
entitled to?
7.02. An application for compensation arising out of an
accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section
165 is provided under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under :
"166. Application for compensation:-
(1) An application for compensation arising out of an
accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of
Page 14 of 40
HC-NIC Page 14 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
14 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
Section 165 may be made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all
or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured
or all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased, as the case may be.
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the
deceased have not joined in any such application for
compensation, the application shall be made on behalf
of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of
the deceased and the legal representatives who have
not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the
application.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be
made, at the option of the claimant, either to the
Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in
which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant
resides or carries on business or within the local limits
of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall
be in such form and contain such particulars as may be
prescribed:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under
Section 140 is made in such application, the application
shall contain a separate statement to that effect
immediately before the signature of the applicant.
Page 15 of 40
HC-NIC Page 15 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
15 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
xx xx xx
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of
accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of
Section 158 as an application for compensation under
this Act."
Thus, in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section
166, in case of death all or any of the legal representative of
the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such
legal representative can file a claim petition. Proviso to said
sub-section makes the position clear that where all legal
representatives are not joined, then application can be made
on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by
impleading those legal representatives as respondents.
7.03. According to sub-section (2) of section 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, "legal representative" means, a
person who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased
person, and includes any person who inter-meddles with the
estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a
representative character, the person on whom the estate
devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
7.04. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to
consider identical question with respect to maintainability of
the claim petition seeking compensation where claim petition
was filed by the legal representative of the deceased, who was
not actually dependent on him.
Page 16 of 40
HC-NIC Page 16 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
16 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
7.05. In the case of Manjuri Bera (supra), an application
under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the
married daughter of the victim and it was submitted on behalf
of the insurer that the married daughter of the victim who was
not dependent, was not entitled to any compensation.
Considering sections 140, 165, 163A, 166 and 168 of the Motor
Vehicles Act and section 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the claim petition at
the instance of such claimant would be maintainable and
where a legal representative who is not a dependent files an
application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than
the liability referable to section 140 of the Act. It is further
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if there is
no loss of dependency, claimant, if he or she is a legal
representative, will be entitled to compensation, compensation
of which shall not be less than the liability flowing from section
140 of the Act. In the said derision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered its earlier decision in the case of GSRTC Versus
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 234,
which was arising out of the decision of this Court.
7.06. In the case of Meghji Khimji Vira and others (supra)
the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider
identical question and in the said decision it is held that the
claim petition by the nephews of the deceased was
maintainable. It is required to be noted that in the said case, it
was found that the nephews were legal representatives of the
deceased.
Subsequently, the aforesaid decision of the
Page 17 of 40
HC-NIC Page 17 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
17 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
Division Bench of this Court has been considered and approved
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai (supra). The question involved in the said case
was whether brother of a person who is killed in a motor
accident can claim compensation in a proceedings instituted
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal established under
the Motor Vehicles Act? The High Court upheld such a claim
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the view taken
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding that such a claim
petition by legal representative of the victim would be
maintainable.
7.07. In the case of Sarama Das and others (supra)
Calcutta High Court has held that the claim application seeking
compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act by
the elder sister of the deceased who was, as such, legal
representative of the victim would be maintainable irrespective
of the fact that they are financially dependent upon the victim
or not.
7.08. A similar view has been taken by the Madras High
Court in the case of Branch Manager, M/s. National
Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Sumathi & Ors.
reported in 2012 AAC 2965 (Madras), wherein it is held that
a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by
a married daughter would be maintainable.
7.09. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the
case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus
Dayanand Ganga Pandit and others, rendered in First Appeal
No. 3032 of 2014 wherein it is held that according to the
Page 18 of 40
HC-NIC Page 18 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
18 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
provisions of the Act, an application for compensation can be
made by the heirs and legal representative of the victim and it
is not necessary that in addition to his status as heir or legal
representative, he should also be financially dependent upon
the victim.
7.10. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra)
by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer is
concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that in the
aforesaid decision there is no absolute proposition of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of a claim
petition filed by the heir and legal representative, not
dependent upon the victim, claim petition seeking
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act shall not be
maintainable at all.
7.11. Even in the case of Mahendrakumar Manilal Patel
and another (supra) which has been heavily relied upon by
the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer, it is
not held that in such a case, claim petition shall not be
maintainable at all.
8.00. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court and even considering the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, more particularly section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, even in cases where heirs and
legal representatives are not dependent, claim petition seeking
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be
maintainable. Under the circumstances, the learned tribunal
has not committed any error in entertaining the claim petitions
Page 19 of 40
HC-NIC Page 19 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
19 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
filed by the original claimant - a married daughter who
admittedly was heir and legal representative of the respective
deceased - victim of the accident, who died in the vehicular
accident.
9.00. Now, the next question which is posed for
consideration of this Court is, what amount of compensation
and under which head the claimant, who is heir and legal
representative but not dependent on the deceased shall be
entitled to.
9.01. In the case of R.D. Hatangadi Versus Pest
Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported in 1995 ACJ
366, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while
fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an
accident, damages have to be assessed separately as
pecuniary damages and special damages. In other words,
peculiar loss and non- pecuniary loss. Pecuniary damages are
which are capable of being calculated in terms of money,
whereas non-pecuniary damages which are incapable of being
assessed by arithmetical calculation. It is further observed that
pecuniary damages includes (1) medical expenses (2) loss of
earning or other profit (3) loss of earning capacity or
incapacity in the labour work and (4) material loss because of
the injuries which leave him which set back for the rest of his
life. The non-pecuniary damages includes - (1) damages for
pain, shock and suffering already suffered and/or likely to be
suffered in future (2) loss of amenities of life which may
include incapability to work or sit (3) damages for the loss of
expectation of life on account of injury the normal longevity of
the person concerned is shortened (4) damages for
Page 20 of 40
HC-NIC Page 20 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
20 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and
mental stress etc. The aforesaid would be in case of fatal
accident as well as in case of injury. In fatal case, these
pecuniary damages would include (1) future loss of income /
loss of dependency (2) medical expenses (3) damages for pain,
shock and suffering, if any (4) loss of estate (5) loss of love and
and affection, funeral expenses, transportation etc.
Future loss of income / loss of dependency, medical
expenses, funeral expenses, transportation would fall under
pecuniary loss / pecuniary damages and pain, shock and
suffering, loss of consortium, loss of estate etc. would fall
under non- pecuniary loss / non- pecuniary damages.
9.02. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has considered in detail as assessment of
compensation and the following relevant principles relevant to
assessment of compensation in case of death and has
observed and held in para 10 to 19 as under :-
"The general principles
10. Before considering the questions arising for decision, it
would be appropriate to recall the relevant principles relating
to assessment of compensation in cases of death. Earlier,
there used to be considerable variation and inconsistency in
the decisions of Courts/Tribunals on account of some adopting
the Nance method enunciated in Nance v. British Columbia
Electric Rly. Co. Ltd. [1951 AC 601] and some adopting the
Davies method enunciated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn
Associated Collieries Ltd., [1942 AC 601].
Page 21 of 40
HC-NIC Page 21 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
21 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
11. The difference between the two methods was
considered and explained by this Court in General Manager,
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas
[1994 (2) SCC 176]. After exhaustive consideration, this Court
preferred the Davies method to Nance method.
12. We extract below the principles laid down in Susamma
Thomas :
"In fatal accident action, the measure of damage
is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be
suffered by each dependant as a result of the
death."
"9. The assessment of damages to compensate
the dependants is beset with difficulties because
from the nature of things, it has to take into
account many imponderables, e.g., the life
expectancy of the deceased and the dependants,
the amount that the deceased would have earned
during the remainder of his life, the amount that
he would have contributed to the dependants
during that period, the chances that the deceased
may not have lived or the dependants may not
live up to the estimated remaining period of their
life expectancy, the chances that the deceased
might have got better employment or income or
might have lost his employment or income
altogether."
10. The matter of arriving at the damages is to
Page 22 of 40
HC-NIC Page 22 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
22 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
ascertain the net income of the deceased
available for the support of himself and his
dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of
his income as the deceased was accustomed to
spend upon himself, as regards both self-
maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what
part of his net income the deceased was
accustomed to spend for the benefit of the
dependants. Then that should be capitalized by
multiplying it by a figure representing the proper
number of year's purchase."
"13. The multiplier method involves the
ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the
multiplicand having regard to the circumstances
of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by
an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the
multiplier is determined by the age of the
deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is
higher) and by the calculation as to what capital
sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate
to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand
by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this,
regard should also be had to the fact that
ultimately the capital sum should also be
consumed-up over the period for which the
dependency is expected to last."
"16. It is necessary to reiterate that the
Page 23 of 40
HC-NIC Page 23 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
23 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
multiplier method is logically sound and legally
well-established. There are some cases which
have proceeded to determine the compensation
on the basis of aggregating the entire future
earnings for over the period the life expectancy
was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom
towards uncertainties of future life and award the
resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly
unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was,
say 25 year of age at the time of death and the
life expectancy is 70 years, this method would
multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years -
virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 - and even if
one-third or one-fourth is deducted therefrom
towards the uncertainties of future life and for
immediate lump sum payment, the effective
multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is
wholly impermissible."
13. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok
Chandra [1996 (4) SCC 362], this Court, while reiterating the
preference to Davies method followed in Susamma Thomas,
stated thus :
"16. In the method adopted by Viscount
Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual
dependency is worked out and then multiplied by
the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is
generally determined on the basis of longevity.
But then, proper discounting on various factors
Page 24 of 40
HC-NIC Page 24 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
24 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such
as, premature death of the deceased or the
dependent, re-marriage, accelerated payment
and increased earning by wise and prudent
investments, etc., would become necessary. It
was generally felt that discounting on various
imponderables made assessment of
compensation rather complicated and
cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready
measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency
was reduced, depending on the life-span taken.
That is the reason why courts in India as well as
England preferred the Davies' formula as being
simple and more realistic. However, as observed
earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas'
case, usually English courts rarely exceed 16 as
the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the
same pattern till recently when Tribunals/Courts
began to use a hybrid method of using Nance's
method without making deduction for
imponderables."
"15. .....Under the formula advocated by
Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be
ascertained by first determining the monthly
Income of the deceased, then deducting
therefrom the amount spent on the deceased,
and thus assessing the loss to the dependents of
the deceased. The annual dependency assessed
in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use
Page 25 of 40
HC-NIC Page 25 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
25 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
of an appropriate multiplier."
14. The lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding
compensation has been a matter of grave concern. Every
district has one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(s). If
different Tribunals calculate compensation differently on the
same facts, the claimant, the litigant, the common man will be
confused, perplexed and bewildered. If there is significant
divergence among Tribunals in determining the quantum of
compensation on similar facts, it will lead to dissatisfaction and
distrust in the system.
15. We may refer to the following observations in Trilok
Chandra :
"We thought it necessary to reiterate the method
of working out 'just' compensation because, of
late, we have noticed from the awards made by
Tribunals and Courts that the principle on which
the multiplier method was developed has been
lost sight of and once again a hybrid method
based on the subjectivity of the Tribunal/Court
has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of
reasonable uniformity in the matter of
determination of compensation. It must be
realized that the Tribunal/Court has to determine
a fair amount of compensation awardable to the
victim of an accident which must be
proportionate to the injury caused."
16. Compensation awarded does not become 'just
Page 26 of 40
HC-NIC Page 26 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
26 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
compensation' merely because the Tribunal considers it to be
just. For example, if on the same or similar facts (say deceased
aged 40 years having annual income of 45,000/- leaving him
surviving wife and child), one Tribunal awards Rs. 10,00,000/-
another awards Rs. 5,00,000/- and yet another awards Rs.
1,00,000/-, all believing that the amount is just, it cannot be
said that what is awarded in the first case and last case, is just
compensation. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation
which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of
the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the
wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled
principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended
to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective.
Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment,
consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness
and uniformity in the decision-making process and the
decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical
precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation,
same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range.
When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal
principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not
divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication
to arrive at just compensation. In Susamma Thomas, this Court
stated :
"16. ...The proper method of computation is the
multiplier method. Any departure, except in
exceptional and extraordinary cases, would
Page 27 of 40
HC-NIC Page 27 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
27 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of
uniformity and an element of unpredictability, for
the assessment of compensation."
18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the
claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a)
age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the
number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the
Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are : (i)
additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii)
the deduction to be made towards the personal living
expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied
with reference to the age of the deceased. If these
determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and
consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for
detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance
Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals
should determine compensation in cases of death, by the
following well settled steps :-
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) :
The income of the deceased per annum should be determined.
Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard
to the amount which the deceased would have spent on
himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance,
which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent
family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active
Page 28 of 40
HC-NIC Page 28 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
28 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This
does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would
have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by
this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to
the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/-
to Rs. 10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the
deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional
amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added
under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be
awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused
to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if
incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased
before death (if incurred) should also be added.
9.03. Now, so far as the amount awarded under the head
of loss of dependency / future loss of income is concerned, it is
required to be noted and it cannot be disputed that the
amount awarded under the said head is on the premise that
the loss suffered by the claimant, if the deceased upon whose
income the claimant was dependent, would not have died.
Page 29 of 40
HC-NIC Page 29 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
29 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
Even while awarding amount of compensation under the head
of loss of dependency / future loss of income, as observed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra)
and even while considering deduction towards personal
expenses of the deceased, number of dependents are required
to be considered. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), while
considering proper deduction towards personal expenses of
the deceased in case of the deceased who was a bachelor and
the claimants are the parents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph Nos. 31 and 32 has observed and held as under :-
"31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50%
is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it
is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more
on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility
of his getting married in a short time, in which event the
contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be
cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and
will not be considered as a dependant and the mother
alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence
of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not
be considered as dependants, because they will either
be independent and earning, or married, or be
dependant on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents
and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be
a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal
Page 30 of 40
HC-NIC Page 30 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
30 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where the family of
the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of
the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third."
9.04. Therefore, as such while assessing / awarding
compensation under the head of loss of dependency / future
loss of income, whether the claimant/s was/were dependent or
not, is a relevant consideration. Therefore, if the claimant who
is not at all dependent upon the deceased, shall not be entitled
to any loss of dependency / future loss of income.
9.05. The nomenclature "loss of dependency" itself is
suggestive of the fact that it is towards the loss which the
dependents would be suffering because of untimely death of
the deceased - victim of the accident, upon whom he/she/they
was/were dependent.
9.06. Even in the case of Manjuri Bera (supra) the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed and held that even if there is no
loss of dependency, claimant, if he or she is a legal
representative, will be entitled to compensation, quantum of
which shall not be less than the liability flowing from section
140 of the Act. it is required to be noted that in the said
decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the
maintainability of the application for getting compensation
Page 31 of 40
HC-NIC Page 31 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
31 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
under section 140 of the Motor vehicles Act which is as such
statutorily provided under section 140 of the Act. In the said
decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed and
held that "no fault liability" envisaged in section 140 of the Act
is distinguishable from the rule of "strict liability". It is further
held that in the former compensation amount is fixed which is
Rs.50,000 in cases of death. It is a statutory liability. Since the
amount is fixed amount / crystallized amount, the same has to
be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. It is
further held that therefore, statutory compensation could
constitute part of his estate and therefore, his legal
representative namely his daughter has inherited his estate
and therefore, she is entitled to inherit his estate.
9.07. Even in the case of Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (supra)
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the principle of
"no fault liability".
10.00. Thus, considering the object and purpose of
awarding compensation under the head of loss of
dependency / future loss of income, though at the instance of
claimant, who is a legal representative but not dependent
upon the deceased / victim of the accident, claim petition for
seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be
maintainable, but such claimant, who is not dependent upon
the deceased / victim of the accident, shall not be entitled to
any compensation under the head of loss of dependency /
future loss of income, for the simple reason that at the time of
accident, such a claimant was not dependent upon the income
of the deceased / victim of the accident and therefore, there
shall not be any loss of dependency / future loss of income to
Page 32 of 40
HC-NIC Page 32 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
32 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
such a claimant. However, such claimant shall be entitled to
compensation under other heads such as medical expenses,
funeral expenses, transportation charges etc. which may fall
under pecuniary loss / pecuniary damages, as the same can
be said to be loss to the estate and the claimant shall also be
entitled to compensation under other conventional heads such
as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate
etc. Under the circumstances, it is held that the claim petition
seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the
death of the deceased / victim of the accident, at the instance
of a claimant, who is heir and legal representative but not
dependent, shall be maintainable and as observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjula Devi (supra),
such compensation shall not be less than the amount as
provided under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus,
the claimant in such a case, shall be entitled to minimum
compensation as provided under section 140 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. It is further observed and held that as such claim
petition is held to be maintainable, such a claimant, who is
legal heir but not a dependent, shall not be entitled to any
amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency
/ future loss of income, but shall be entitled to compensation
under other heads towards pecuniary loss / damages such as
medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendance
charges and under the conventional heads such as, loss of
consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection etc.
11.01. First Appeal No. 2192 of 2002 has been
preferred by the original claimant of Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 233 of 1998 with respect to the compensation
claimed for the death of Indiraben Lalitbhai Banker - mother of
Page 33 of 40
HC-NIC Page 33 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
33 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
the original claimant.
11.02. First Appeal No. 2193 of 2002 has been
preferred by the original claimant of Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 234 of 1998 claiming compensation for the death
of Sister-in-law Dr.Dipikaben Darpeshbhai Banker.
11.03. First Appeal No. 2194 of 2002 has been
preferred by the original claimant of Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 235 of 1998 claiming compensation for the death
of brother Darpesh Lalitbhai Banker.
11.04. First Appeal No. 2195 of 2002 has been
preferred by the original claimant of Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 236 of 1998 claiming compensation for the death
of father Lalitbhai Manilal Banker.
11.05. That the statement of respective Motor
Accident Claim Petitions / First Appeals in each of the appeals
are as under:-
F.A. No. MACP Name of the Age of Claimed Amount awarded by
No. deceased and the Amount the Tribunal
relation with the decea- (in Rs.)
claimant. sed
2192/02 233/98 Indiraben 53 5,00,000 Yearly Income. Rs.18,000
Less 1/3 deduction. Rs.06,000
Lalitbhai Banker - (in MACP)
--------------
Mother 2,10,000 Total Rs.12,000
(in FA) Multiplier of 8 X8
Total Rs.96,000
Plus
Loss of expectation
of life. Rs.10,000
Transportation &
funeral charges. Rs.05,000
--------------
Total Rs.1,11,000
======
Page 34 of 40
HC-NIC Page 34 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
34 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
2193/02 234/98 Dr.Dipikaben 25 9,00,000 Yearly Income. Rs.18,000
Less 1/3 deduction. Rs.06,000
Darpeshbhai (in MACP)
--------------
Banker - Sister- 2,68,680 Total Rs.12,000
in-law. (in FA). Multiplier of 8 X8
Total Rs.96,000
Plus
Loss of expectation
of life. Rs.10,000
Transportation &
funeral charges. Rs.05,000
--------------
Total Rs.1,11,000
======
2194/02 235/98 Darpeshbhai 27 5,00,000 Yearly Income. Rs.13,200
Multiplier of 12 X12
Lalitbhai Banker - (in MACP)
--------------
Brother. 3,25,000 Total Rs.1,59,600
(in FA).
Plus
Loss of expectation
of life. Rs.10,000
Transportation &
funeral charges. Rs.05,000
-----------
Total
Rs.1,74,600
=====
2195/02 236/02 Lalitbhai Manilal 57 5,00,000 Yearly Income. Rs.36,000
Less 1/3 deduction. Rs.12,000
Banker - Father. (in MACP)
--------------
2,93,000 Total Rs.24,000
(in FA). Multiplier of 8 X8
Total Rs.1,92,000
Plus
Loss of expectation
of life. Rs.10,000
Transportation &
funeral charges. Rs.05,000
-----------
Total Rs.2,07,000
======
12.01. First Appeal No. 2192 of 2002 :-
That the deceased at the time of accident was aged
53 years. That the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.96,000
under the head of future loss of income. While awarding future
loss of income, the learned tribunal has assessed / considered
the income of the deceased at Rs.18000 per annum and after
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased
and thereafter applying multiplier of 8, the learned tribunal
has awarded Rs.96,000 under the head of future loss of
income. As the deceased was aged 53 years, multiplier of 11
is/was required to be applied. However, as observed and held
Page 35 of 40
HC-NIC Page 35 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
35 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
hereinabove, as the original claimant was not dependent upon
the deceased / income of the deceased, the original claimant
shall not be entitled to any amount under the head of future
loss of income.
However, so far as the amount awarded by the learned
tribunal towards the loss of expectation of life is concerned, it
is required to be noted that the learned tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000 only towards the loss of expectation of life and
affection. As accident occurred in the year 1992, the claimant
shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.50,000 towards
expectation of life, loss of love and affection etc. The claimant
shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5000 towards funeral
expenses.
To the aforesaid, the impugned judgement and award
passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified.
12.02. First Appeal No. 2193 of 2002 :-
That the deceased at the time of accident was aged
25 years. That the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.96,000
under the head of future loss of income. While awarding future
loss of income, the learned tribunal has assessed / considered
the income of the deceased at Rs.18000 per annum and after
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased
and thereafter applying multiplier of 8, the learned tribunal
has awarded Rs.96,000 under the head of future loss of
income. As the deceased was aged 25 years, multiplier of 18
is/was required to be applied. However, as observed and held
hereinabove, as the original claimant was not dependent upon
the deceased / income of the deceased, the original claimant
Page 36 of 40
HC-NIC Page 36 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
36 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
shall not be entitled to any amount under the head of future
loss of income.
However, so far as the amount awarded by the learned
tribunal towards the loss of expectation of life is concerned, it
is required to be noted that the learned tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000 only towards the loss of expectation of life and
affection. As accident occurred in the year 1992, the claimant
shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.50,000 towards
expectation of life, loss of love and affection etc. The claimant
shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5000 towards funeral
expenses.
To the aforesaid, the impugned judgement and award
passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified.
12.03. First Appeal No. 2194 of 2002 :-
That the deceased at the time of accident was aged
27 years. That the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.1,59,600
under the head of future loss of income. While awarding future
loss of income, the learned tribunal has assessed / considered
the income of the deceased at Rs.13,200 per annum and after
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased
and thereafter applying multiplier of 12, the learned tribunal
has awarded Rs.1,59,600 under the head of future loss of
income. As the deceased was aged 27 years, multiplier of 17
is/was required to be applied. However, as observed and held
hereinabove, as the original claimant was not dependent upon
the deceased / income of the deceased, the original claimant
shall not be entitled to any amount under the head of future
loss of income.
Page 37 of 40
HC-NIC Page 37 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
37 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
However, so far as the amount awarded by the learned
tribunal towards the loss of expectation of life is concerned, it
is required to be noted that the learned tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000 only towards the loss of expectation of life and
affection. As accident occurred in the year 1992, the claimant
shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.50,000 towards
expectation of life, loss of love and affection etc. The claimant
shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5000 towards funeral
expenses.
To the aforesaid, the impugned judgement and award
passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified.
12.04. First Appeal No. 2195 of 2002 :-
That the deceased at the time of accident was aged
57 years. That the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.1,92,000
under the head of future loss of income. While awarding future
loss of income, the learned tribunal has assessed / considered
the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000 per annum and after
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased
and thereafter applying multiplier of 8, the learned tribunal
has awarded Rs.1,92,000 under the head of future loss of
income. As the deceased was aged 57 years, multiplier of 8
is/was required to be applied. However, as observed and held
hereinabove, as the original claimant was not dependent upon
the deceased / income of the deceased, the original claimant
shall not be entitled to any amount under the head of future
loss of income.
However, so far as the amount awarded by the learned
Page 38 of 40
HC-NIC Page 38 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
38 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
tribunal towards the loss of expectation of life is concerned, it
is required to be noted that the learned tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000 only towards the loss of expectation of life and
affection. As accident occurred in the year 1992, the claimant
shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.50,000 towards
expectation of life, loss of love and affection etc. The claimant
shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5000 towards funeral
expenses.
To the aforesaid, the impugned judgement and award
passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified.
13.01. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, First Appeal Nos. 2188 to 2191 of 2002 preferred
by the appellant - Insurance Company - original opponent
No.3, are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The First
Appeal Nos. 2192 to 2195 of 2002 preferred by the original
claimant are also partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The
impugned common Judgment and Award passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary),
Dhrangadhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 233 to 236
of 1998 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is
held that the original claimant shall be entailed to a total
compensation of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand
only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from
the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 233 of 1998.
The original claimant shall also be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand
only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from
the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in Motor
Page 39 of 40
HC-NIC Page 39 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
39 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
Accident Claim Petition No. 234 of 1998.
The original claimant shall also be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand
only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from
the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 235 of 1998.
The original claimant shall also be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand
only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from
the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 236 of 1998.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(M.R.SHAH, J.)
Rafik...
Page 40 of 40
HC-NIC Page 40 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016
40 of 41
C/FA/2188/2002 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2188 of 2002
[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 22/01/2016 in
C/FA/2188/2002 ]
TO
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2195 of 2002
=============================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD....Appellant(s)
Versus
DIPTIBEN URESHBHAI VORA & 3....Defendant(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR AMAR N BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR SANDIP C SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 18/03/2016
ORAL ORDER
Learned adovcate appearing on behalf of the appellants does not press the present Note for Speaking to Minutes with a liberty to file an appropriate application in the main First Appeals.
Present Note for Speaking to Minutes is dismissed as not pressed with above liberty.
Sd/ (M.R. SHAH, J.) Ajay Page 1 of 1 HC-NIC Page 41 of 41 Created On Sun Mar 20 02:49:24 IST 2016 41 of 41