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

2024 Supreme(Guj) 834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Bhenaben Rambhai Chudasma and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sitaben Parashbai Prajapati and Another – Respondents
First Appeal No. 4141 of 2017, Cross Objection No. 29 of 2023, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 04-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Hemal Shah.
For the Respondent: Yogi K. Gadhia.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the use of the Minimum Wages Schedule for income assessment and considered legal precedents for determining various types of compensation in motor accident claims.

Headnote:

Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - M.A.C.P. No. 164 of 2006 - Minimum Wages Schedule, Consortium Loss, Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses - Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was involved in a fatal accident caused by the negligence of a truck driver. The claimants challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation based on the deceased's income and other losses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the assessment of income should have been based on the Minimum Wages Schedule and awarded compensation for dependency loss, consortium loss, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. The court also directed the respondents to deposit the enhanced compensation amount and made provisions for disbursement to the claimants.

Issues: Assessment of income, dependency loss, consortium loss, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and disbursement of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Minimum Wages Schedule for income assessment and considered legal precedents such as Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 for determining consortium loss, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were modified. The cross objection was rejected, and the civil application was disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4141 OF 2017

1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants-claimants as heirs of the deceased have challenged the judgment and award dated 25.11.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Gir-Somnath at Veraval in M.A.C.P. No. 164 of 2006.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under:

    On 02.04.2006, the deceased was going towards the temple of Madhavrai seated in a Tractor bearing Registration No. GJ-11E-570. When they reached at the place of accident, one Truck bearing Registration No. GJ-IAT-3982 dashed the Tractor from the rear side causing fatal injuries to the deceased, who died on the spot. A First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the Truck and learned Tribunal while deciding the negligence aspect had perused the panchnama which revealed that the width of the road is 23 Feet. Further, it also revealed that the truck had dashed the tractor from the rear side and hence, the truck driver was negligent and responsible for the accident who was required to drive the vehicle in a controlled speed and by exercising due care and caution and therefore, the learned Tribunal has attributed the accident to the sole negligence of the Driver of the truck.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants Mr. Hemal K. Shah submitted that the assessment of income was required to be made as per the Minimum Wages Schedule, and consortium loss was required to be paid as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130.

4. While contending this argument, learned Advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the income assessment must depend on cogent documentary evidence and stated that the cross objection has been raised as negligence aspect is not in accordance to the evidence.

5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of the case. The deceased was 35 years at the time of accident. He was earning from driving work. The evidence was given by the claimants and driving license of the deceased was produced on record. The claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal considering the date of accident as 02.04.2006 and on the basis of the socio-economic condition in the State of Gujarat in the year 2006, had assume the income of Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, what was required to be adopted by the learned Tribunal was the Minimum Wages Schedule so as to take the assistance for the calculation rather making presumptive assessment. Accordingly, the material which has been supplied to this Court to consider the minimum wages shows that at the time of accident for the skilled labourer, the minimum wages in the State of Gujarat was Rs. 2,400/- per month.

6. The deceased was 35 years at the time of his death. 40% prospective rise in income is required to be considered. Dependents are four in number, hence 1/4 amount is deducted as amount towards the personal expenses. Applying the multiplier of 16, the dependency loss would be considered. The calculation thus, for dependency loss is as under:

    (i) Rs. 2,400/- + 40% rise = Rs. 960/- Hence Rs. 2,400/- + Rs. 960/- equals to Rs. 3,360/-.

(ii) 1/4 deduction towards the deceased’s personal expenses, the amount would come to Rs. 2,520/- (Rs. 3,360/- minus Rs. 840/-).

7. Annually, applying the multiplier of 16, the dependency loss would come to Rs. 4,83,840/- (Rs. 2,520/- x 12 x 16).

8. The deceased had died leaving behind a widow and minors/children. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the appellants would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each. Therefore, under the head of consortium loss the amount would come to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- x 3 claimants).

9. Under the heads of Loss of Estate an

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