Partly allowed

Juvansing Bhimsinh Jadeja v. Bharat S Mistry

Gujarat HC3 Feb 2012FA/785/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These are first appeals against a common judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court modified the compensation amount in one appeal and the interest rate in another based on the precedent of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, dismissing the remaining appeals.

What did the court decide?

M.A.C.P. 244/1995 award modified to Rs. 1,45,000; interest in First Appeal No. 785 reduced to 12% per annum; excess amount of Rs. 19,000 to be refunded via account payee cheque.

Juvansing Bhimsinh Jadeja Vs Bharat S Mistry — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

FA/783/1997

¶2

1/5

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

FIRST APPEAL No. 783 of 1997

¶6

¶7

FIRST APPEAL No. 786 of 1997

¶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

4 of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶16

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶17

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

¶18

JUVANSING BHIMSINH JADEJA & 2 - Appellant(s)

¶19

Versus

¶20

JAYABEN S MISTRY & 9 - Defendant(s)

¶21

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

¶22

Appearance :

¶23

MR SUNIL PARIKH for MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. MS HETABEN H SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 2 - 6. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 7 - 8, 10, MS LILU K BHAYA for Defendant(s) : 9,

¶24

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

¶25

FA/783/1997

¶26

2/5

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶29

Date : 03/02/2012

¶30

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶31

These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 11.10.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P. Nos. 246/1995, 244/1995, 429/1996 and 245/1995, whereby the said claim petitions were partly allowed and the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 246/1995, Rs.1,64,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 244/1995, Rs.1,40,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 429 of 1996 and Rs.1,50,000/- in M.A.C.P. No.245/1995 along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.

¶32

The above claim petitions came to be filed in respect of the vehicular accident that took place on 31.03.1995 at around 0930 hrs. near Village Tansa on Bhavnagar Talaja Highway in which deceased and injured persons were travelling in a tractor and trailor bearing registration No. GJ-4-H-99 and GAZ 1814 and truck bearing registration no. GJ-10-T-7031, insured with the appellant – Insurance Company.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. So far as First Appeal No. 783/1997 is concerned, it has been mainly

¶34

FA/783/1997

¶35

3/5

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

contended on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- is erroneous since there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the same. Therefore, it is submitted that the total amount awarded under the head of loss of dependency deserves to be reduced. However, even if the prospective monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.3,000/- and thereafter effect the deduction of 1/4th amount and adopt the multiplier of 15, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 the total amount of compensation would have exceeded the amount awarded by the Tribunal, Hence, I do not find any reasons to entertain First Appeal No. 783/1997.

¶38

So far as First Appeal No. 784 of 1997 is concerned, the only ground on which the impugned award of the Tribunal has been assailed is that the multiplier of 6 is contrary to law as the same is against the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121. Considering the age of the deceased the appropriate multiplier would be 5 and by adopting the multiplier of 5, the total dependency benefit would come to Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore the claimants will be entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- [Rs.1,20,000 + 20,000 for loss of estate + 5,000 for funeral expenses] instead of Rs.1,64,000 as awarded by the

¶39

FA/783/1997

¶40

4/5

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

Tribunal. So far as income awarded under other heads are concerned, the same are just and appropriate and I find no reasons to disturb the same.

¶43

So far as First Appeal No. 785 of 1997 is concerned, the appellant has challenged the impugned award passed by the Tribunal only qua interest. It is submitted that interest at the rate of 15% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and that the same deserves to be reduced.

¶44

Considering the facts of the case and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121, interest at the rate of 15% per annum is on the higher side. In my opinion, if interest at the rate of 12% per annum is awarded, the same would meet with the ends of justice. No other contention has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶45

So far as the First Appeal No. 786 of 1997 is concerned, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is on the higher side. However, having gone through the impugned award, I find that the compensation awarded under the respective heads are just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. I am in

¶46

FA/783/1997

¶47

5/5

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeal.

¶50

For the foregoing reasons, First Appeal No. 783 of 1997 and 786 of 1997 are dismissed. First appeal No. 784 of 1997 is concerned, the same is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the original claimants of M.A.C.P.244/1995 shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-. The excess amount of Rs.19,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company by way of “account payee” cheque. So far as First Appeal No. 785 of 1997 is concerned, the same is modified to the extent that interest @ 12% is awarded as against 15% awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the impugned award remains unaltered.

¶51

In view of the above, the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

¶52

[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]

¶53

/phalguni/

Juvansing Bhimsinh Jadeja v. Bharat S Mistry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvansing Bhimsinh Jadeja v. Bharat S Mistry

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

Gagusha Kamalsha Fakir Vs Lalji Karshanbhai Chudasama

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shantaben W/O Vahjibhai Nathu-Bhai

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shantiben Bijal Barariya,Wd/O Decd,Bijal Kheta

Sister of Charity of St.Anni Navjivan Leprosy Hospital Vs Arifbhai B Kapadia Decd.Thro' Heirs Dilsadben Arifbhai & 5

Juvansing Bhimsinh Jadeja Vs Jayaben S Mistry

Juvansing Bhimsinh Jadeja Vs Nanduben Jodhabhai Koli