Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Heirs of Decd. Ikbalbhai Gulamnabi Vohra

Gujarat HC1 Apr 2021FA/208/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance Company appealed against the Tribunal's award in a fatal motor accident claim, challenging the computation of future prospective income. The Court held that following Supreme Court precedents, considering the last year's income for a self-employed person was correct and the award was just, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; interim relief vacated; Tribunal directed to disburse the amount.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Heirs of Decd… — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/FA/208/2013 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 208 of 2013

¶4

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

¶5

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

¶6

Versus

¶7

HEIRS OF DECD. IKBALBHAI GULAMNABI VOHRA & 1 other(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR BHUNESH C RUPERA(3896) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA(3709) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3 RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

¶13

Date : 01/04/2021

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - original opponent No.2 herein has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’ for short) against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Anand (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short) in MACP No.499/2009, whereby, in fatal claim, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.12,88,842/with interest @ 7 % p.a.

¶16

The brief facts are that, the deceased Iqbalbhai Gulambhai Vahora met with an accident on 20.08.2009 when his motorcycle was hit by offending truck No.HR-58-6-1387, as a result, he succumbed to the injuries. Upon the lodging of the FIR, the driver of the truck was arrested and finally, he was chargesheeted. The respondent Nos.1

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

C/FA/208/2013 ORDER

¶19

to 3 being the widow and major sons of the deceased filed the claim petition No.499/2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Anand joining the owner of the vehicle as respondent No.1 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. with whom the vehicle was insured as respondent No.2. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the truck took defence of total denial, whereas, the appellant – insurance company filed a counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that, the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident and the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶20

After consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence, ld. Tribunal allwoed the claim petition and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,88,842/- along with 7 % interest p.a. holding the owner as well as the insurance company held liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation.

¶21

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied wit the impugned judgment and award dated 31.08.2012, the appellant Insurance Company has come up before this Court with the present appeal.

¶22

Heard Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company and Mr. Raxit Dholakia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/3 - original claimants.

¶23

Shri Maulik J. Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that, the learned Tribubnal has erred in

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

C/FA/208/2013 ORDER

¶26

considering 30 % prospective income which should have been considered to the tune of 25 % and therefore, the same deserves to be modified accordingly. It was further pointed out that, the ld. Tribunal has erred in considering the last income of the deceased. In this context, he has submitted that, while computing the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal had considered the income of the deceased at Rs.1,10,850/- p.a., which could not have taken into consideration as the deceased was tax payer and the income tax returns for the last three years were placed on record by the claimants. Therefore, the ld. Tribunal ought to have considered the average income of the deceased while computing the income of the deceased.

¶27

In the aforesaid background facts, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that, the ld. Tribunal is not justified in awarding the compensation qua future prospective income, which requires interference of this Court and the appeal may be allowed as prayed for.

¶28

On the other hand, Mr. Raxit Dholakia, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants would submit that, the amount awarded under the head of future prospective income is just and proper, which does not require any interference by this Court and hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

¶29

Upon hearing the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties, the issue arises for determination is, whether the amount

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

C/FA/208/2013 ORDER

¶32

of compensation as determined by the ld. Tribunal needs any interference ?

¶33

10.Undisputedly, the deceased Ikbalbhai Vohra died at the age of 48 years in a road accident, which occurred on 20.08.2009 at the place mentioned in the panchnama of place of incident. After analysis of the evidence on record, more particularly, the deposition of widow Arifaben being PW:1 at Exh:23, it appears that, the deceased was in business of sale and purchase of radiators and its repairing work. Before the ld. Tribunal, the widow had produced the copies of last three years income tax returns i.e. A.Y. 2008-09 (Rs.1,10,850/-), A.Y. 2007-08 (Rs.1,01,050/-) and Rs.2006-07 (Rs.88,559/-). Admittedly, returns were filed before the alleged accident and there is no dispute raised by the insurance company about its genuineness.

¶34

11.In the impugned award, the ld. Tribunal had considered the last income of Rs.1,10,850/- and made the addition of 30 % towards future prospective income and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.18,73,264/- towards loss of future income (Rs.9237/- + 30 % X 12 X 13). The ld. Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of consortium and thereby, awarded total compensation of Rs. 12,88,842/-.

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

C/FA/208/2013 ORDER

¶37

12.The main contention raised by the Insurance Company is that, the ld. Tribunal ought to have computed the income of the deceased on the basis of average last three years income and could not have considered the last income as shown in the income tax returns for the A.Y. 2008-09.

¶38

13.Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I am of the opinion that, there is no error in the impugned judgment and award. It is pertinent to note that, in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] , the Apex Court on the issue of addition of future prospective amount, has held that, where the deceased was a self employed, the court will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while taking into consideration the last income of the deceased, which appears to be just, proper and reasonable. It is required to be noted that, under the conventional head, ld. Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-, whereas, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi [2017 (16) SC 680] , it should be Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, addition of 30 % instead of 25 % would make no major difference to disturb the impugned judgment and award, which is otherwise just and reasonable. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that, the amount of compensation appears to be just and reasonable,

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

C/FA/208/2013 ORDER

¶41

which does not require any interference.

¶42

14.In view of the discussions made hereinabove and the reasons thereof, there is no merit in the present appeal and hence, it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶43

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

¶44

SUCHIT

¶45

Page 6 of 6

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Heirs of Decd. Ikbalbhai Gulamnabi Vohra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Heirs of Decd. Ikbalbhai Gulamnabi Vohra

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

Hussainabibi Firozkhan Pathan Legal Heirs of Decd.Firozkhan Vs Mukesh Arvindbhai Brahmbhatt

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Dhanjibhai Becharji Ode

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Inayatkhan Allarakha Pathan

Rakesh Maharajdin Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat

Ruturajbhai Lalajibhai Aal Vs State of Gujarat

Kashyap Umeshbhai Patel Thro Sangitaben Umeshbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat