Allowed

Meenaben Mukeshbhai Suthar v. Madanbhai Premjibhai Suthar

Gujarat HC25 Jun 2018FA/477/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves an appeal against the compensation award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a fatal motorcycle accident. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,75,000 based on a Supreme Court precedent requiring a 40% future income rise and a multiplier of 18.

What did the court decide?

The appellant to receive an additional Rs. 2,30,000, to be deposited by the insurance company with interest and released partially in favor of the claimants.

Meenaben Mukeshbhai Suthar Vs Madanbhai Premjibhai… — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/FA/477/2018 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 477 of 2018

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and

¶6

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶7

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

¶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 ?

¶11

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

¶12

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

¶13

MEENABEN MUKESHBHAI SUTHAR

¶14

Versus

¶15

MADANBHAI PREMJIBHAI SUTHAR

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance:

¶18

MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3 MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5 MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

¶21

and

¶22

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶23

Date : 25/06/2018

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

¶26

Appellants are the original applicants. They have challenged

¶27

Page 1 of 4

¶28

C/FA/477/2018 JUDGMENT

¶29

the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 30.09.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Navsari.

¶30

Brief facts are as under:

¶31

One Mukeshbhai Suthar was returning to his village Bardoli after completing his carpentry work at village Khund of Chikhli Taluka on 07.06.2011. He was a pillion rider on a motorcycle which was driven by the original appellant No.1. The vehicle met with an accident with a truck causing fatal injuries to the pillion rider. Deceased, at the time of accident, was aged about 21 years and was working as a carpenter. Claimants i.e. his widow and aged parents therefore filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 22 lacs from the driver and owner of the truck involved in the accident.

¶32

The Claims Tribunal believed that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the truck driver. The Tribunal believed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3000/- per month in absence of any proof. Without giving any rise for the future prospects, the Tribunal computed the compensation by applying multiple of 17 and reduced the income by 1/3^rd for the personal expenditure of the deceased himself. The Tribunal awarded further compensation towards loss of estate and consortium etc. The total of 4,45,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants seek enhancement of compensation.

¶33

Page 2 of 4

¶34

C/FA/477/2018 JUDGMENT

¶35

Notice for final disposal was issued to the insurance company. Counsel for the appellant submitted that he has three limited contentions to make. Firstly, the Tribunal did not grant any rise in the future income. Secondly, the Tribunal applied a multiple of 17 whereas 18 was justified. Thirdly, the Tribunal also did not grant compensation for conventional heads. We have also heard learned counsel for the insurance company.

¶36

The deceased was 21 years of age and was engaged in carpentry work. As per the decision of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shethi and ors reported in 2017 (3) GLH 536, 40% rise for future income would be needed. His prospective income would therefore become Rs. 4200/-. Even maintaining his current income of Rs. 3000/-, as adopted by the Tribunal, 1/3^rd thereof i.e. Rs. 1400/- would be set apart for his personal expenditure leaving a net of Rs. 2800/- per month for the benefit of the family or Rs. 33,600/- per annum. Multiplier of 18 would make loss of dependency benefit at Rs. 6,04,800/- rounded off to Rs. 6,05,000/-. Under conventional heads, all put together Rs. 70,000/- would be awarded, as suggested by the Supreme Court in case of Pranay Shethi and ors. Thus, the total to be received by the claimants is Rs. 6,75,000/-. The Tribunal already having awarded Rs. 4,45,000/-, he will receive additional Rs. 2,30,000/- under this appeal which may be deposited latest by 31.08.2018 by the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal with simple interest @ 9% per

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

C/FA/477/2018 JUDGMENT

¶39

annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment minus the period of delay in filing the First Appeal as per the order dated 11.01.2018 passed in Civil Application for condonation of delay. Upon such deposit, the Claims Tribunal shall release 50% in favour of the claimants. Remaining 50% shall be invested in any nationalized bank for a period of five years in cumulative fixed deposit to be released on maturity period with accrued interest.

¶40

First Appeal is disposed of.

¶41

(AKIL KURESHI, J)

¶42

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶43

JYOTI V. JANI

¶44

Page 4 of 4

Meenaben Mukeshbhai Suthar v. Madanbhai Premjibhai Suthar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenaben Mukeshbhai Suthar v. Madanbhai Premjibhai Suthar

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

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sithra Napsinh Chada

National Insurance Company Limited, Palanpur Vs Jaswantsingh, S/O Manjitsingh

Vipinbhai Chandubhai Vasava Vs Nikitaben W/O Vipinbhai Vasava D/O. Kanchanbhai Ratanlal Vasava

Abdulmajidkhan Abdullakhan Pathan Vs Rizvanabanu Shahnawazkhan Pathan

Dasrathlal Khushaldas Gurjar Vs Bhavna Dasrathlal Gurjar

Firozbhai Rasulbhai Rathod Vs Secretary