BHIKHIBEN MELSING VASAVA v. KARIMBHAI MALEK
Court: High Court of Gujarat
Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Gujarat judgment dated 2024-04-16. BHIKHIBEN MELSING VASAVA v. KARIMBHAI MALEK. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4651 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================== BHIKHIBEN MELSING VASAVA & ANR. Versus KARIMBHAI MALEK & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS.
JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 16/04/2024 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The claimants widow and son of the deceased have challenged the judgment dat 25. 07. 2008 in MACP No. 130 of 2001 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux. ) Vadodara. 2. Mr. M. T. M. Hakim, learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the deceased ws working as a Senior Gangman in Indian Railway at Miyagam Karjan. Mr. Hakim stated that the salary slip would prove his income and the last salary slip, as could be proved, would be of September- October, 2000; while the death is of 03. 11. 2000, where the deceased was going by foot at Karjn National Highway near Choranda Fatak, and from the opposite side Truck No. GJ-16-T-9524 dash the deceased, who was thrown down on the road an died on the spot. 2. 1 Advocate Mr. Hakim submitted tht according to the salary slip the total salary o the deceased was Rs. 5,206/-. Mr.
Hakim furthr submitted that after deducting the tax payabl , the income has to be considered and prospectiv rise in income has to be added in accordance to the judgment of National Insurance Company Lt . v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , AIR 2017 SC 5157. Advocate Mr. Hakim further submitted that t deceased was 44 years at the time of his deat and the multiplier, as per Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, would be 14. 3. Countering the argument, Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the Insuran Company submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income by relying on the basi salary with Dearness Allowances. Advocate Mr. Shelat stated that on fact of year of retirement, the Tribunal has assessed the income, and, thus stated that the excess amount has been granted by the Tribunal, which requires consideration in accordance to the judgment of Pranay Sethi an Ors.
(supra), as the compensation should be just and reasonable and should be assessed in accordance to the standard formulated in t judgment ofPranay Sethi and Ors. (supra). 4. Considering the deductable amount, t income of Rs. 5,000/- per month is required to b assessed. The deceased was in permanent job o being a Senior Gangman in the Indian Railway an aged about 44 years at the time of death, henc , as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), 30% rise in income has to be assesse . rd Considering the dependency, 1/3 deduction is required to be made for personal expenses; thus the yearly future loss would come as under: Actual Income 5,000/- Prospective 6,500/- [5,000 + 1,500 (30% rise)] Income rd 1/3 6,500 / 3 = 2166. 67 (rounded off Deduction Rs. 2167/-) Yearly Future 51,996/- [6,500–2167 = 4,333 x 12] loss 5. The multiplier applied would be 14; hence, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 7,27,944/- (51,996 x 14). Thus, accordingly the claimants would be entitled to Rs.
7,27,944/-as loss of dependency. 6. The Tribunal under the heads of loss to estate and funeral expenses granted Rs. 20,000/-and Rs. 5,000/- respective. However, as per t judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), Rs. 15,000/- each under the heads of loss to estate and funeral expenses is granted. 6. 1 As one of the claimant is widow of t deceased, hence, in accordance to the judgment o Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Rm Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. , reported in (2018) S 130 [2018 ACJ 2782], under the head of consortium loss, Rs. 40,000/- is granted. 7. In view of the above, compensation undr the different heads would be: Heads Amount Loss of Dependency Rs. 7,27,944/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Consortium Loss Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 7,97,944/- 8. The Tribunal has awarded totl compensation as Rs. 5,98,480/-. Now, the claimant would be entitled to get Rs. 1,99,464/- (7,97,944 – 5,98,480) as enhanced compensation at t interest rate of 7. 5%.
Total amount be paid to claimant no. 1. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dat 25. 07. 2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux. ) Vadodara in M. A. C. P. No. 130 o 2001 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 10. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal. (GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj
Source: High Court of Gujarat. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.