IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 613 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

NASIMBANU HANIFBHAI KHOD & ORS.

Versus DINESHBHAI LABHSHANKARBHAI TRIVEDI & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR BRIJ V SHETH(10594) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 03/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.1219 of 2016. The claimant has filed a cliam petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act whereby compensation awareded Rs.3,24,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent No.1.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 11.02.2016 at about 8:00 p.m., the deceased, Hanifbhai Kasambhai Khod, was driving Car No. GJ-3AK-8494 on the Samakhyali–Bhachau Highway. When he reached near Sahyog Hotel, the car collided with the rear side of an unknown vehicle moving ahead, resulting in a serious accident. Hanifbhai Kasambhai Khod sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to those injuries during treatment.

4. The learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has awarded a lesser amount of compensation. It is submitted that the appeal is filed mainly on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly considering the dependency as per the settled structure, and has also erred in applying the multiplier. If the age of the victim is considered as it is, the appropriate multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. It is submitted that the amounts awarded under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses are also on the lower side. Therefore, the learned advocate for the appellant prays for enhancement of the compensation.

5. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-insurance company has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the multiplier has been correctly applied, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC

121. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration the entire material on record and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeal may be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, it is true that the claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, under Schedule II. As per the Schedule, compensation is required to be awarded on the basis of the structured formula, without considering negligence or any other factors. Where the annual income is taken as Rs.40,000/-, compensation must be calculated accordingly by deducting dependency as provided under Schedule II of the MV Act, 1988. The Tribunal, however, has not awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, and to that extent, the Tribunal has committed an error. However, after the amendme