Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
R.M. Chhaya, B.N. Karia, JJ.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL — Appellant
Vs.
ANITA SANJAYKUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS — Respondent
First Appeal No. 696 of 2010, 985 of 2011
Decided on : 24-07-2019
Karuna V. Rahevar, Advocate, Lalji R. Mokaria, Advocate, M.T.M. Hakim, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, including the calculation of income, future prospects, and appropriate multiplier.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claim - Section 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The court also highlighted the legal principles related to the determination of compensation, including income calculation, future prospects, and appropriate multiplier.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, an advocate, died in a motor accident. The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which was challenged in the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation based on the deceased's income, future prospects, and appropriate multiplier. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, and partly allowed the appeal filed by the original claimant.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of the deceased's income, appropriate multiplier, and compensation under conventional heads. Another issue was whether the remarriage of the deceased's wife affected her right to claim compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the income of the deceased should be determined based on his profession and future prospects. It also ruled that the wife's remarriage did not extinguish her right to claim compensation.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment and awarded enhanced compensation to the original claimant, directing the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount with interest.
JUDGMENT :
R.M.Chhaya, J. - Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 07.11.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Vadodara, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.1055/2004, the appellants - original claimants preferred First Appeal No.985/2011 for enhancement of compensation, whereas the Oriental Insurance Company preferred First Appeal No.696/2010, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). Therefore, both these appeals were heard together and are hereby disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr.M.T.M Hakim, learned counsel for the appellant - original Claimant and Ms. Karuna Rahevar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in First Appeal No.985/2011. Heard Ms.Karuna Rahevar, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and Mr. M.T.M Hakim, learned counsel for respondent No.1. No one appears for other respondents in First Appeal No.696/2010. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-
3.1 That the deceased Sanjaykumar Chandubhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased" for short) was practicing as an advocate at Vadodara District Court and other Taluka Courts of Vadodara District. That, on 06.05.2004, at about 5:45 to 6:00 P.M., the deceased along with his wife Anita after completion of Court work going to their village on motorcycle and at that time, one of his relatives Mr. Thakorebhai was also passing from there and therefore, they stopped their motorcycles and talked with each other on the left side of the road, at that time, one tempo bearing registration No.GJ-6-U7-162 containing Banana, came in rash and negligent manner and driver of said tempo lost his control over the steering and therefore, the tempo turned turtle, due to which, wife of the deceased - Anita and Thakorbhai received injuries and the deceased received severe injuries due to hook of the tempo. In the said accident, the deceased died during the treatment. In connection with the said accident, FIR came to be registered and chargesheet was filed before the jurisdictional magistrate.
3.2 It is the case of the original claimant that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the tempo.
3.3 It is further the case of the claimant that the deceased was aged about 30 years on the date of accident and was practicing as an advocate under the advocate Mr.M.P.Vyas, who used to give Rs. 2, 000/- p.m and the deceased was also having additional income of Rs. 10, 000/- p.m from his profession and thereby, total income of the deceased was Rs. 12, 000/- p.m.
3.4 The original claimants of First Appeal No.696/2010 filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 21, 00, 000/-, wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 4, 75, 000/- along with costs and interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
3.4 The original claimant of First Appeal No.985/2011 filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 9, 999/-, wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 5, 000/- along with costs and interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No.985/2011 contended the following main grounds :
(i) That, the deceased was practicing advocate at Vadodara District Court and other Taluka Courts of Vadodara Districts since 2001;
(ii) That the Tribunal has wrongly determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 2, 500/- p.m and therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the evidence of advocate Mr.M.P.Vyas, under whom the deceased was prac
