Partly allowed

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

Gujarat HC8 Feb 2012FA/275/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gujarat High Court allowed a partial appeal challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held the 15% interest rate was excessive, directing the Tribunal to award interest at 12% from the date of the claim petition.

What did the court decide?

Interest on the awarded amount modified from 15% to 12% from the date of claim petition; amount deposited as security for interest to be refunded.

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Buniben… — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

FA/275/2000

¶2

1/4

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

FIRST APPEAL No. 275 of 2000

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶8

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

¶9

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶10

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

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

¶12

========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s)

¶13

Versus

¶14

BUNIBEN WD/O FALUSINGH HIRABHAI KOLI & 4 - Defendant(s)

¶15

=========================================================
Appearance :

¶16

MR MITUL K SHELATfor Appellant(s) : 1,
MR UM SHASTRI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3.
DELETED for Defendant(s) : 4,

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶19

Date : 08/02/2012

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 30.11.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claims

¶22

FA/275/2000

¶23

2/4

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Petition No. 951 of 1991 so far as the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation with interest at 15% and costs.

¶26

It is the case of the claimants that on 05.08.1991 the husband of the claimant no. 1 was awaitig bus at Limkheda bus stop when a bus bearing registration No. GRU 9093 which was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner tried to stop his bus but due to the excessive speed the bus hit the husband of the claimant no. 1 as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. The claimants therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,0000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.

¶27

Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering deceased's prospective monthly income as Rs. 3600/- even though the earned Rs. 2400/- per month. He submitted that having regard to the fact that the deceased was 47 years old the Tribunal ought to have taken prospective income into account after adding 30% of the income which in present case comes to Rs. 3120/-.

¶28

3.1 Mr. Shelat further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and the same also deserves to be reduced. He submitted that the Tribunal also awarded higher amounts under various heads.

¶29

Learned advocate appearing for the respondent has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted

¶30

FA/275/2000

¶31

3/4JUDGMENT

¶32

that even if the income is assessed as Rs. 3120/- the amount awarded by the Tribunal will not make much difference. He submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 3,50,000/which was the claim of the claimants when the amount of compensation actually came to Rs. 4,07,400/-.

¶33

Thus considering the formula laid down in the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr Vs. Balwant Yadav & Ors, reported in 1996 AIR 1274 (=1996 SCC (3) 179) the income of the deceased is to be calculated. In the present case the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2400/-. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. Considering the age of the deceased, 30% increase is required to be borne in mind as far as prospective income is concerned. Therefore the prospective income per month shall come to Rs. 3120/- (2400+720) and Rs. 37440/- per annum.

¶34

5.1 In the present case the claimants are 3 and therefore 1/3^rd of the total income is required to be deducted for personal expenses. Accordingly the loss of dependency will be Rs. 2080/- per month (3120-1040) and per annum it would be Rs.24960/-.

¶35

5.2 I am of the view that, looking to the age of the claimant, the multiplier of 13 awarded in the present case is just and proper. Therefore the future loss of income would come to Rs. 3,24,480/- (Rs. 24960 x 13). As regards the rest of the awards under various heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20000/- for loss of expectation of life which is on higher side. The appropriate amount would have been Rs. 10000/- under the said head. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for

¶36

FA/275/20004/4

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

funeral expenses and therefore Rs. 5000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶39

Therefore the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,51,480/- (i.e. Rs. 3,24,480/- for future loss of income + Rs.10,000/- for expectation of life + Rs.1000 for consortium + Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2000/- for transportation). However, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 3,50,000/- and therefore no interference is called for in that regard.

¶40

However, the interest of 15% imposed by the Tribunal is on a higher side. This court is of the view that interest of 12% ought to have been imposed by the Tribunal. The award is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶41

Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% instead of 15% on the awarded amount from the date of claim petition till realisation. The amount deposited by the appellants qua 3% interest shall be refunded. The proportionate amount in FD shall be paid to the claimants. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶42

Divya//

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

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

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs Tilakben Dayachand Alias Dineshbhai Zaveri

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