SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Kherunben Ibrahimbhai Belim – Appellant
Versus
Pravinbhai Prahladbhai Prajapati – Respondent
R/First Appeal No. 1857 of 2022
Decided on : 03-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : NISHIT A BHALODI
For the Respondent: MR TANMAY B KARIA

The court emphasized the application of the Minimum Wage Schedule and relevant case law in determining compensation for motor accident claims, including dependency loss, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claim - Negligence - Minimum Wage Schedule - Consortium Loss - Funeral Expenses - Loss of Estate - [MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM] - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The court discussed the negligence of the driver, the assessment of the deceased's income, and the concept of consortium loss. It referred to the Minimum Wage Schedule and relevant case law to determine the compensation for dependency loss, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was involved in a motor accident due to the negligence of the car driver, resulting in fatal injuries. The court analyzed the negligence, assessed the deceased's income, and determined the compensation for dependency loss, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the driver solely negligent for the accident and assessed the deceased's income based on the Minimum Wage Schedule. It also awarded compensation for dependency loss, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

Issues: Negligence of the driver, assessment of the deceased's income, and determination of compensation for dependency loss, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Minimum Wage Schedule and relevant case law to determine the compensation for dependency loss, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

Final Decision: The appeal succeeded in part, and the court modified the judgment and award of the Tribunal to enhance the compensation for the claimants. The appellants were entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge is given to the judgment and award dated 10.01.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Mahesana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 162 of 2017 mainly on the ground that the income aspect has not been rightly considered and further consortium loss has not been granted to the claimants.

2. On 12.04.2017, deceased – Ibrahimbhai Pirubhai Belim, was going by drawing the cycle, accompanied with Muskanbanu, Rasulbhai and Mumtazben, who were walking along with him. At about 9:00 hours when they were passing through Nandasan – Dangarva road, near bore-well of Saiyed Abdul Ahmad, at that time, one Maruti Eeco car bearing registration No. GJ-01-KQ-5294 came in rash and negligent manner, in excessive speed and from the rear side, dashed with all of them and due to the accident, they sustained injuries and taken to Lions General Hospital at Mahesana. Since, Ibrahimbhai Pirubhai Belim had sustained fatal injuries, he died during the treatment.

3. The learned Tribunal, while appreciating the fact of negligence, has considered the driver of the Eeco car, as sole negligent for the accident.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhalodi for the appellants – claimants submitted that the deceased was an agriculture labourer and was also doing animal husbandry work and used to supply milk in the Mandli and was, thereby, earning about Rs.12,000/- per month but since, the claimants could not produce the evidence of his income from the Mandli, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the said aspect but Mr. Bhalodi submitted that learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.5,500/- per month considering it minimum wages of the daily wager as on 12.04.2017, but is erroneous on record.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Karia for the respondent No. 3 - insurance company stated that the claimants had failed to produce any evidence to prove the income from the Mandli or the employment of the deceased in agricultural field and thus, stated that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the amount of Rs.5,500/- as assessed by the Tribunal as daily wager, is just and appropriate.

6. The Notification of the Labour and Employment Department, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar dated 26.12.2014 has categorized the employment in various departments under the head of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Considering the deceased as been agriculture labourer and dealing in the animal husbandry, the deceased would fall in the category of unskilled labourer and if the Minimum Wage Schedule on the date of accident is to be followed, then, the Minimum Wage Schedule considers the net pay of unskilled labourer as Rs.7,946/- per month.

6.1 The learned Tribunal has considered the deceased as daily wager. It is the case of claimants that the deceased was working in agricultural field. The evidence of selling the milk in Mandli has not been proved by any documentary evidence and hence, going by the Minimum Wage Schedule as on 12.04.2017, the date of accident, the income for the unskilled labourer, would come to Rs.7,946/-, as referred to herein above. 40% prospective rise in income is required to be considered and hence, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.11,124/-. The dependents are four in number and hence, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the monthly income would come to Rs.8,343/- (Rs.11,124 – 2,781). Considering the annual dependency loss and applying the multiplier of 16, the total dependency loss would come to Rs.16,01,856/- (Rs.8,343 x 12 x 16).

6.2 In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the concept of consortium loss as under:

    “8.4 The Insurance Company has submitted that the father and the sister of the deceased could not be treated as dependents, and it is only a mother who can be dependent of her son. This co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top