Dismissed

Guj State Road Transport Corpn v. Hetiben Wd/O Karsanbhai Sundarbhai Chaudhari

Gujarat HC8 Feb 2012FA/1119/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident appeal against a compensation award of Rs. 2.25 lakhs, the High Court held that the Tribunal erred in adopting a lower multiplier and insufficient heads for damages. The court enhanced the future loss of income by applying a multiplier of 13 and added amounts for funeral, consortium, and medical expenses, ordering the respondent to pay an additional Rs. 77,760.

What did the court decide?

Appellant shall pay an additional Rs. 77,760 with interest at 7.5% to the claimants; Tribunal award modified.

Guj State Road Transport Corpn Vs Hetiben Wd/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

FA/1119/1988

¶2

1/5

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

FIRST APPEAL No. 1119 of 1988

¶6

With

¶7

CROSS OBJECTION No. 28 of 2006

¶8

For Approval and Signature:

¶9

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶10

=========================================================

¶11

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶12

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶13

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ?

¶14

Whether this case involves a substantial question

¶15

of law as to the interpretation of the

¶16

4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶17

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge}

¶18

¶19

=========================================================

¶20

GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN - Appellant(s)

¶21

Versus

¶22

HETIBEN WD/O KARSANBHAI SUNDARBHAI CHAUDHARI & 8 - Defendant(s)

¶23

=========================================================

¶24

Appearance :

¶25

MRS VASAVDATTA BHATTfor Appellant(s) : 1,
MR PRAKASH K JANI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4,6 - 8.
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 5, 9,

¶26

=========================================================

¶27

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶28

Date : 08/02/2012

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

FA/1119/1988

¶31

2/5

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

By way of this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the original opponent no.2 – present appellant has challenged the judgement and award dated 10.03.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mehsana in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 335 of 1983 whereby the Tribunal directed the original opponents to jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs. 2,25,500/- to the original claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and proportionate costs.

¶34

1.1 The original claimants have filed the cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶35

The original applicants -present respondent nos. 1 to 8 who are the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Karsanbhai Chaudhari had filed a claim petition seeking compensation for Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of Shri Karsanbhai in the motor vehicular accident which had occurred on 10.04.1983 between Kuvasana and Ghaghret village while travelling in an S.T. bus bearing no. GTH 5220. The bus was being driven by original opponent no.1 at an excessive speed. Due to such rash and negligent driving, the bus turtled and Shri Karsanbhai sustained serious injuries which resulted in his death. The legal heirs of the deceased being wife and children filed the aforesaid claim petition. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.

¶36

Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellant Corporation submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased

¶37

FA/1119/1988

¶38

3/5

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

and thereby erred in granting more compensation. She submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also on higher side and the same is required to be reduced.

¶41

Learned advocate appearing for the original claimants supported the award of the Tribunal so far as liability of the appellant corporation is concerned. He however submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation which is on lower side. He submitted that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased and the multiplier on a lower side. He submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 20% while calculating future loss of income and that the amount awarded under various heads also need to be enhanced. He submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate amounts under loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and medical expenses.

¶42

Heard learned advocates for the parties. The Tribunal has gone through the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the S.T bus driver. This court is in complete agreement with the same.

¶43

4.1 In the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 26275/-. The Tribunal has deducted 20% towards personal expenses. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. Therefore the loss of dependency per annum shall come to Rs. 21020/-.

¶44

I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 10 awarded in the present case is on lower

¶45

FA/1119/1988

¶46

4/5

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

side. The issue with regard to multiplier is already settled by the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 wherein it is held as under:

¶49

“The multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

¶50

5.1 In view of the aforesaid decision, the just and proper multiplier would be 13. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs.2,73,260 (Rs.21,020 x 13).

¶51

As regards the rest of the awards the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10000/for loss of consortium over and above the amounts awarded under various heads.

¶52

Therefore the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,03,260/- (i.e. Rs.2,73,260/- for future loss of income + Rs.10,000/- for loss of expectation of life + Rs. 10000/- for loss of consortium + Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses + Rs. 5000/- for medical expenses). The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 2,25,500/-. Therefore in all, an additional amount of Rs. 77,760/- is required to be paid to the appellants.

¶53

FA/1119/1988

¶54

5/5

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Cross Objection is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 77,760/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application i.e. 25.08.1983 till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶57

(K.S. JHAVERI, J.)

¶58

Divya//

Guj State Road Transport Corpn v. Hetiben Wd/O Karsanbhai Sundarbhai Chaudhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guj State Road Transport Corpn v. Hetiben Wd/O Karsanbhai Sundarbhai Chaudhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yunusbhai Satarbhai Zindani Vs Salimbhai Daudbhai

Kalubhai Husenbhai Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation.

Vishnubhai Shankarbhai Patel Vs Babuji Velaji Thakor

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Buniben Wd/O Falusingh Hirabhai Koli

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Tilakben Dayachand Alias Dineshbhai Zaveri

Ahmedabad Municipal Corp. Vs Alkaben Wd/O Rameshbhai Ganeshbhai Prajapati