RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs. CHANDRAKANTBHAI BACHUBHAI SURTI

C/FA/1177/2014 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1177 of 2014 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4622 of 2014 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 1177 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/- and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA Sd/-

================================================================ 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD....Appellant(s) Versus CHANDRAKANTBHAI BACHUBHAI SURTI & 1....Defendant(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PARESH M DARJI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 2 - 2.3 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Page 1 of 6

C/FA/1177/2014 JUDGMENT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

Date : 29/04/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.00. ADMIT. Mr.Paresh Darji, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent. 2.00. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, present appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 3.00. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award dated 26/7/2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 402 of 2010 by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition, and has awarded a total sum of Rs.19,94,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation, appellant original opponent No.2 – Insurance Company has preferred the present First Appeal. 3.01. That in a vehicular accident which took place on 26/7/2010 with the Travera Car bearing No.GJ-18-X-1411, driven by the opponent No.1, deceased Vinaben, who was a pedestrian died and therefore, respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/3 Page 2 of 6

C/FA/1177/2014 JUDGMENT herein filed claim petition before the learned tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.31 Lacs. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has held the driver of the Travera Car 100% negligent which is not challenged by the appellant – Insurance Company. That on appreciation of evidence and considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.26,245/- at the time of accident / death and thereafter adding further 15% towards future prospects / prospective income and thereafter deducting income tax and thereafter further deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased, the learned tribunal considered dependency at Rs.18,000/- per month and applying multiplier of 9 (considering the age of the deceased at 57 years), the learned tribunal has held that the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.19,44,000/- under the head of future economical loss and thereafter awarding Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss to the estate and Rs.10,000/- towards future funeral expenses, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.19,94,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. 3.02. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal, the appellant – original opponent no.2 – Insurance Company has preferred the present First Appeal. 4.00. Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in adding 15% towards prospective income / future prospects. It is submitted that as the deceased was aged 57 years at the time of accident / death, and as a salaried person, as per the decision of Sarla Page 3 of 6

C/FA/1177/2014 JUDGMENT Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, nothing further was required to be added towards prospective income / future prospects. It is submitted that therefore, the learned tribunal has materially erred in adding 15% of income towards future prospects. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. No other submissions have been made. 5.00. Mr.Paresh Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants initially tried to oppose the present appeal however, after making some submission, there is a broad consensus that 15% of the income added towards future prospects be deleted / set aside and the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal be modified to the aforesaid extent. Under the circumstances and as there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties to modify the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal to the extent that the learned tribunal has added 15% of the income towards future prospects and the same be deleted / set aside. 6.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties recorded hereinabove, and even otherwise considering the age of the deceased at 57 years at the time of accident / death, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Page 4 of 6

C/FA/1177/2014 JUDGMENT Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others (supra), as such nothing was required to be added towards future prospects / future prospective as the deceased was a salaried employee having fixed date of superannuation, the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal adding 15% towards future prospects while considering the future economical loss is required to be quashed and set aside. 6.01. The original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards the loss to the estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses etc. 6.02. In view of the above and considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.26,245/- (26,300/- rounded of) and deducting 10% towards income tax it would come to Rs.23,700/- per month and thereafter deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased, dependency would come to Rs.15,900/- per month and thereafter applying multiplier of 9, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.17,17,200/- under the head of future economical loss and thereafter adding Rs.10,000/- towards loss to the estate; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,42,200/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside to the aforesaid extent. 7.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated Page 5 of 6

C/FA/1177/2014 JUDGMENT above, present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgement and award dated 26/7/2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 402 of 2010, is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.17,42,200/- towards compensation for the death of deceased with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation (instead of Rs.19,94,000/- as awarded by the learned tribunal). Thus, the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent and the present appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of disposal of the main appeal, no order in the Civil Application no.4622 of 2014 and the same is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (M.R.SHAH, J.) Sd/- (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Rafik. Page 6 of 6