Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal enhancing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act by correcting the deduction for personal expenses and adjusting conventional heads as per Supreme Court precedents.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 35,38,719/- with simple interest, adjusted for personal expenses and conventional heads.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/FA/961/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL No. 961 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL No. 1433 of 2018 with CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
==============================================================
==============================================================
ABDULMAJIDKHAN ABDULLAKHAN PATHAN
Versus
RIZVANABANU SHAHNAWAZKHAN PATHAN
============================================================== Appearance: [First Appeal No. 961 of 2018] Mr KIRAN C MEHTA, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr DAKSHESH MEHTA for Mr RD MEHTA, Advocates for RESPONDENT No. 6 Mr NISHIT A BHALODI, Advocate for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3 Appearance L [First Appeal No. 1433 of 2018]
Mr DAKSHESH MEHTA, Advocate for the Appellant Mr ZEESHAH K KADRI, Advocate for Respondents No. 1.1.3 Ms AKSHITABA SOLANKI, Advocate for Respondent no. 2
=============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA 25th June 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Page 1 of 8
C/FA/961/2018 JUDGMENT
Considering the small issued raised by the appellants in this First Appeal, we have heard the appeal with the consent of the parties finally at the admission stage itself.
First Appeal No. 961 of 2018 is filed by the original claimants. They had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1775 of 2012 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) [“ the Claims Tribunal ” for short] claiming compensation of Rs. 35 lacs from the opponents. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 29,42,543/- to the claimants. They seek enhancement of compensation. First Appeal No. 1433 of 2018 is filed by the Insurance Company.
Brief facts are as under :
One Shanawaskhan Abdulmajidkhan Pathan was travelling from Ahmedabad to Vadodara in a WagonR car on 17th August 2012. The car was being driven by the opponent no. 1; it was owned by opponent no. 2 and was insured by the opponent no. 3-Insurance company. According to the claimants, the WagonR car was being driven rashly and negligently at an excessive speed. The Eicher truck in front of the car when applied brakes, the driver of the car in which Mr.
Page 2 of 8
C/FA/961/2018 JUDGMENT
Shanawaskhan Abdulmajidkhan Pathan was travelling lost its control and dashed against the Eicher truck from behind causing fatal injuries to Shanawaskhan Pathan, who was aged about 34 years at the time of accident. He was a practicing advocate. His income at the time of accident was claimed to be Rs.14,000/- per month. His widow, two minor children and aged parents, therefore, filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 35 lakhs.
The Claims Tribunal believed that the accident took place due to sole negligence of driver of the car in which deceased was travelling. The Tribunal accepted income of the deceased at Rs. 13,000/- per month on the basis of Income-tax returns produced on the record, granted 50% rise for the future and deducted one third for the personal expenditure of the deceased. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 to work out dependency benefit at Rs. 29,19,424/-. To this, the Tribunal added various sums, as under:-
Rs. 25,19,424/- : Loss of dependency Rs. 25,000/- : Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- : Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- : Loss of Love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- : Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- : Funeral Expenses Rs. 88,119/- : Medical expense as per order at Exh. 60 Rs. 39,42.543/=
Page 3 of 8
C/FA/961/2018 JUDGMENT
The sole ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-claiments before us was that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in deducting one-third income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. He argued that the deceased had left behind five dependents. As per the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (smt) & Ors. vs . Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in [2009] 6 SCC 121, the deduction on personal expenses would be one-fourth of his income. He drew our attention towards the judgement of the Claims Tribunal where the Tribunal has recorded reasons for holding that the parents of deceased were not his dependants.
Learned advocate for the opponents submitted that the Claims Tribunal has awarded excessive amount for the conventional heads viz., loss of consortium; loss of love and affection; loss of estate and funeral expenses which are required to be reduced as per the decision in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (3) GLH 536.
Since these are across appeals, we have taken on account all the aspects simultaneously. In so far as the question of
Page 4 of 8
C/FA/961/2018 JUDGMENT
negligence is concerned, it is writ large on the face of record that the WagonR Car in which the deceased was travelling dashed with a Eicher truck from behind. We have no reason to upset the findings of the Claims Tribunal that the driver of car was solely negligent in causing the accident.
The income of deceased was accepted on the basis of income- tax returns filed by the claimants. In any case, deceased was a young lawyer, aged about 34 years. The assessment of his income at Rs.13,122/= by the Claim's Tribunal was just. The Tribunal, in our opinion, committed an error in believing that both the parents of the deceased were not dependent on him. The Tribunal came to such a conclusion on the ground that the deceased had elder brother and the parents were residing with him. For several reasons, this would not be sufficient to decide the dependency. The claimants had claimed that the parents were dependant on the deceased. They were aged 70 years and 60 years respectively on the date of accident. There is nothing on the record to suggest that they had any independent means of livelihood. When the deceased himself was an active advocate and earning regular income, he would be even in the natural
Page 5 of 8
C/FA/961/2018 JUDGMENT
course of events, expected to support his parents. Whether they were residing with him or with the elder brother would not be a decisive or conclusive factor. It appears that the deceased had only one brother and it would therefore be safe to presume that both brothers would share their financial liability of looking after their aged parents. We, therefore, consider that one of the two parents was dependant on the deceased. Thus, the number of dependants at the time of accidents would come to four. The deduction for personal expenditure of the deceased would be therefore one-forth of the income. Maintaining future rise in the income; as adopted by the Claims Tribunal, his prospective income would work out as Rs.19,683/- per month. Setting apart one-fourth share of Rs. 4,920/- for his personal expenses, the amount of Rs.14,712/- [rounded off Rs.14,725/-] would be set apart for the benefit of the family every month, or Rs. 2,09,100/- per annum. Adopting multiplier of 16; looking to his age, the loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs. 33,45,600/-.
The Tribunal, however, has granted higher amount under the conventional heads. The same would have to be adjusted as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Page 6 of 8
C/FA/961/2018 JUDGMENT
Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpo. & Anr. [Supra] . Under the combined heads, a sum of Rs. 70,000/would be granted. It appears that the deceased survived for sometime, after the accident which led to awarding compensation for pain, shock and suffering and reimbursement of medical expenses. These would be left untouched and the revised computation of compensation would, therefore, be as under:
Rs.33,456/- Loss of dependancy Rs.25,000/- Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.88,119/- Medical Expenses Rs.70,000/- Conventional Heads. ========
Total : Rs.35,38,719/-
The appellant shall have time upto 20th July 2018 to pay requisite court fees which has remained unpaid so far on the excess computation of Rs. 38,719/-. Additional compensation shall be paid with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment.
First appeal of the claimants is allowed. First Appeal No. 1433 of 2018 filed by the Insurance-company is dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed.
Page 7 of 8
C/FA/961/2018 JUDGMENT
It is clarified that the parents would receive 20% of the total compensation awarded to the claimants. Remaining 80% shall go to the widow and children of the deceased. Entire amount of compensation shall be invested in fixed deposit by the Claims Tribunal in terms of the Award subject to the modification; as above.
[Akil Kureshi, J.]
[B.N Karia, J.]
Prakash
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the deduction one-third of income for personal expenses is erroneous when multiple aged parents were dependent.
Whether the Tribunal's assessment of dependents included the deceased's aged parents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs . Delhi Transport Corporation & AnrFollowed¶35
[2009] 6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.Followed¶36
2017 (3) GLH 536
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdulmajidkhan Abullakhan Pathan
Rizvanabanushanawazkhan Pathan
Rd Mehta
Nishit A Bh Modi
Zeeshah K Kadri
Akshitaba Solanki
Akil Kureshi
B.N. Karia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
