Partly allowed

Kunverben Naranbhai Ahir v. Karsan Mera Ayar

Gujarat HC3 Jul 2012FA/2202/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 2,65,400 following the precedent in Sarla Varma, applying a multiplier of 16 and awarding loss of consortium.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed; the Tribunal's judgment and award are modified to award an additional amount of Rs. 65,400 with interest.

Kunverben Naranbhai Ahir Vs Karsan Mera Ayar — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

FA/2202/2002

¶2

1/4

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

FIRST APPEAL No. 2202 of 2002

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE

¶8

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

¶9

KUNVERBEN NARANBHAI AHIR & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus

¶10

KARSAN MERA AYAR & 4 - Defendant(s)

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

MR MEHUL S SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.MR SURESH M SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1,3 - 5. MR SANDIP C SHAH for Defendant(s) : 2,

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE

¶16

Date : 03/07/2012

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellants, original claimants, have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement, against the judgment and award dated 27^th April, 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux-2], Kutch-Bhuj in M.A.C. Petition No.621 of 1991, whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization against the opponents jointly and severally.

¶19

The short facts for which the claim petition is filed, judgment and award for compensation was passed and filing of the present appeal, are as under.

¶20

2.1 On 25.09.1991 at about 21.00 hrs. nearby village Mithi Sheri, the deceased Naranbhai Mandanbhai was hit by a truck bearing registration

¶21

FA/2202/2002

¶22

2/4

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

No.GTY-4933, which was rashly and negligently driven in reverse gear and over ran the body of the deceased, who died on the spot.

¶25

Thus, the appellants filed claim petition claiming Rs.5,00,000/- in all as compensation from the opponents.

¶26

Upon consideration of claim of the dependent-claimants, the claims tribunal calculated complete negligence on the part of the truck driver who was taking his truck in reverse but failed to notice the deceased aged about 31 years, who was the sole bread-winner of the family earning Rs.2,100/- p.m. After examining the necessary material on record and job of the deceased as mechanic, which was certified by the Sarpanch of the village, the Tribunal, however determined income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- p.m. But considering the future prospects of the deceased, who was young and able-bodied man assumed Rs.2,000/- p.m. and average of Rs.1,500/- was considered as prospective income. Thus, by applying multiplier of 15, the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was considered towards Loss of Dependency and under other heads viz. Loss of Estate and Funeral Charges Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively were awarded. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

¶27

Learned advocate for the appellants would contend that the deceased was aged 31 years having family of more than 5 persons, and therefore, multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied and 1/5^th of the income could have been deducted towards personal expenses. Learned advocate for the appellants further submits that the appellant ought to have awarded Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Consortium. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the appellants relied on the decision in the case of Sarla Varma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009)6 SCC 121]. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment

¶28

FA/2202/2002

¶29

3/4

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

and award deserves to be modified accordingly.

¶32

Mr. Sandip Shah, learned advocate for the insurance company would submit that award of the claims tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence on record and in absence of any material about income of the deceased, compensation awarded on the basis of multiplier of 15 and deduction of 1/3^rd amount towards personal expenses, at the relevant point of time, appears to be just and proper, more particularly, when the rate of interest awarded is @12% p.a. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶33

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record, including the judgment and award impugned, there is some force in the submissions of the learned advocate for the claimant that the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of accident and he was a mechanic repairing electrical motors and even certificate issued by Sarpanch of village Mithi Rohar at Exh.37 also supports the case of the appellants. Even as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma [supra], multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied and deduction towards personal income ought to have been 1/5^th instead of 1/3^rd . Similarly, the appellant is entitled for Loss of Consortium, which is assessed and awarded at Rs.15,000/-

¶34

In view of the above, the appellants are entitled for the following additional amount:

¶35

Head	Amount	awarded	Amount enhanced by the
	by the [Rs.]	Tribunal	order of this Court [Rs.]

¶36

FA/2202/2002

¶37

4/4

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Income [Prospective]	1,500	1,500
Less : Deduction towards personal expenses	500	300
Monthlyincome	1,000	1,200
Yearlyincome x multiplier	1,80,000[15]	2,30,400[16]
Loss of Estate	15,000	15,000
Funeral Expenses	5,000	5,000
Loss of Consortium	-------	15,000
Total Amount	2,00,000	2,65,400
Difference amount		65,400

¶40

Thus, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.65,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till realization.

¶41

The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Award to be drawn accordingly.

¶42

[ Anant S. Dave, J .]

¶43

*pvv

Kunverben Naranbhai Ahir v. Karsan Mera Ayar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunverben Naranbhai Ahir v. Karsan Mera Ayar

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

Valimamad @ Mamad Yusufbhai Sirman Vs Police Commissioner

Mohamad Sufiyan @ Sufiyan Mamu Bashir Shaikh through Cousin Vs State of Gujarat through Secretary

Chanduvan Bhikhuvan Goswami (Dece. Thro Heirs) Vs Trikambhai Jivabhai Vasta

Yogesh Amrutlal Rana through Friend Ghanshyambhai C Rana Vs State of Gujarat

Raman Sampatbhai Dantani Vs State of Gujarat

Babubhai Kachrabhai Dantani Vs State of Gujarat