Allowed

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

Gujarat HC31 Mar 2021FA/862/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against the quantum of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying a low multiplier without considering the deceased survived 12 years post-accident. Compensation was enhanced by Rs.22,080 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.22,080 to total Rs.68,755; respondents liable to pay with 7.5% p.a. interest; order remitted to Tribunal for disbursement.

Hussainabibi Firozkhan Pathan Legal Heirs of… — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/FA/862/2010 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 862 of 2010

¶4

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

¶5

HUSSAINABIBI FIROZKHAN PATHAN LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD.FIROZKHAN

¶6

Versus

¶7

MUKESH ARVINDBHAI BRAHMBHATT & 1 other(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

¶13

Date : 31/03/2021

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.46,675/-, awarded by the Tribunal (Vadodara), in MACP No.1782/1993, the original claimant – appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶16

Heard Mr. MTM Hakim, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-original claimant and Mr. Hamesh Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 – National Insurance Company Ltd.

¶17

Mr. Hakim, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 5 while computing the amount under the head of future economic loss. In this context, he pointed out that, accident in question took place

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

C/FA/862/2010 ORDER

¶20

on 31.05.1993 and during the pendency of claim proceedings, the injured died on 19.08.2005 and accordingly, the learned Tribunal after considering disablement to the extent of 23 %, had awarded the amount of Rs.27,600/- under the head of future economic loss. (monthly income at Rs.24,000/- X 23 % = Rs.5,520/- X 5 = Rs.27,600/-). In this circumstances, the learned counsel would submit that, the learned Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 12 considering the age of the deceased.

¶21

Learned counsel Mr. Hakim does not press the other issues like contributory negligence determined to the extent of 25 % attributable to the deceased injured and the amount awarded under the different heads by the learned Tribunal.

¶22

On the other hand, Mr. Hamesh Naidu, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal contending that, the discretion exercised by the learned Tribunal while awarding the amount under the head of future economic loss is just and proper and considering the facts of the present case, the appellant failed to make out the case for enhancement of the amount under the head of future economic loss.

¶23

After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the record and proceedings of the case, it appears that, the original claimant Firozkhan Chauhan had sustained injuries in a vehicular accident which took place on

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

C/FA/862/2010 ORDER

¶26

31.05.1993. It is an undisputed fact that, at the time of filing the claim petition, age of the injured was 44 years old and he died at the age of 56 years during the proceedings of the claim petition. The only issue raised in the present appeal is with regard to amount of compensation awarded under the head of future economic loss, wherein, the ld. Tribunal thought it fit to apply multiplier of 5 while computing the total amount towards future economic loss. The findings regarding application of multiplier of 5 is erroneous as the ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that, after the accident, deceased was alive for 12 years. Had the tribunal considered this aspect of 12 years, then, the Tribunal would have applied the multiplier of 12 instead of 5. In this backdrop, the amount awarded under the head of future economic loss needs to be enhanced as under:

¶27

Rs.24,000/- X 23 % = Rs.5,524/- X 12 = 66,240/- - 25 % contributory negligence = Rs.49,680/- - Rs.27,600/- (the amount which has already been awarded) = Rs.22,080/-.

¶28

In view of the above, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced amount of Rs.22,080/- under the head of future economic loss and respondent Nos.1 and 2 held liable to pay with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization of the amount. The award be modified accordingly. Except the above modification, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the different heads remains unchanged.

¶29

For the foregoing discussions, the appeal stands allowed in the

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

C/FA/862/2010 ORDER

¶32

aforesaid terms, by enhancing the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.46,675/- to Rs.68,755/-. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with the interest before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and the Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount in cash to the appellant. Record and proceedings, if any, be remitted back to the learned Tribunal.

¶33

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

¶34

P.S. JOSHI

¶35

Page 4 of 4

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Dhanjibhai Becharji Ode

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Inayatkhan Allarakha Pathan

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vadodara Vs Salimkhan Khalilkhan Pathan

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

Rakesh Maharajdin Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat

Ruturajbhai Lalajibhai Aal Vs State of Gujarat