AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr.
No.",Claim Petition Number,"Claimed compensation
(in Rs.)
1,MACP No.1427/1993,"Rs.47,00,000/Â
2,MACP No.1428/1993,"Rs.1,50,000/Â
3,MACP No.1429/1993,"Rs.3,00,000/Â
4,MACP No.1430/1993,"Rs.12,18,000/Â
5,MACP No.1431/1993,"Rs.2,50,000/Â
6,MACP No.1432/1993,"Rs.3,00,000/Â
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the captioned appeal be allowed and the judgment and award be modified",,
accordingly.,,
IN FISRT APPEAL NO.1237/2012 :Â,,
(i) That the injured  Maganbhai was earning much more by working in the diamond polishing factory and the Tribunal has committed an error in,,
considering the income of the injured at Rs.2,000/Â p.m. Only. and that the income of the deceased should at least to be considered at Rs.3,000/Â‐",,
p.m. However, it was contended that appellants do not dispute the extent of permanent disability of the body as a whole, which is determined by the",,
Tribunal at 18 %,,
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and award be modified",,
accordingly.,,
IN FISRT APPEAL NO.1238/2012 :Â,,
(i) That the deceased was housewife and the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/Â p.m;",,
(ii) That the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering any increase in income by way of prospective income;,,
(iii) That the Tribunal has awarded a megre amount of Rs.20,000/Â under the conventional heads, which should be appropriately enhanced to",,
Rs.30,000/Â as the husband of deceased Jamnaben also expired in the same accident.",,
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and award be modified",,
accordingly.,,
IN FISRT APPEAL NO.1239/2012 :,,
(i) That the Tribunal has erred in considering the income by taking average of 3 years income tax returns;,,
(ii) That the accident has occurred on 08.05.1993 and the income tax returns for the said assessment year being Exh:114 clearly shows that, income of",,
the deceased on the date of accident was Rs.34,998/Â p.a.",,
(iii) That, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shashikala & Ors. Vs. Gangalakshmamma & Anr., [2015 (9) SCC 150], when there is",,
a definite evidence on record to show that what was the yearly income in the year of accident, income should be determined as per the last income",,
tax returns;,,
(iv) That the Tribunal has also committed an error in not granting any prospective income and that, the appellants would be entitled to benefit of",,
prospective income to the tune of 40 %;,,
(v) That the Tribunal has committed an error in granting only Rs.25,000/Â under the conventional head, which should be enhanced to Rs.30,000/Â as",,
per the ratio laid down in the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra).,,
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and award be modified",,
accordingly.,,
IN FISRT APPEAL NO.1240/2012 :Â,,
(i) That the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased, who was minor aged 9 years, only at Rs.1,500/Â p.m;",,
(ii) Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors. [2014 (1) SCC 244], it was contended that just",,
and proper compensation would be Rs.2,50,000/Â instead of Rs.1,55,000/Â as awarded by the Tribunal;",,
(iii) That even before the Tribunal, the claimants had claimed only Rs.2,50,000/Â.",,
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and award be modified",,
accordingly.,,
IN FISRT APPEAL NO.1241/2012 :Â,,
(i) That the deceased Labhuben, who was aged 40 years, was also housewife and the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of",,
the deceased at Rs.1,800/Â p.m, which should be enhanced to Rs.3,000/Â p.m;",,
(ii) That the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering any increase in income by way of prospective income and the appellants should be,,
entitled to get the benefit of increase in income to the tune of 30 %;,,
(iii) Even in the present claim petition, the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation of Rs.30,000/Â under the different conventional head, which",,
should be enhanced to Rs.70,000/Â.",,
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and award be modified",,
accordingly.,,
Thus, as contended hereinabove, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that present appeals be allowed, as prayed for, and the award be",,
modified accordingly.,,
Per contra, Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Â Insurance Company has opposed these appeals and contended as under",,
appealwise :,,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1236/2012 :Â,,
(i) That, considering the fact that the accident had occurred on 08.05.1993, the Tribunal has correctly not awarded any prospective income;",,
(ii) That, the Tribunal has considered the income as per the evidence on record and as such, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased",,
was doing business of land leading. It was also contended that, except mention that the deceased was in business of dealing in land, there is no",,
evidence on record to even remotely suggest that the deceased Virjibhai was in the business of land and therefore, the contention of Mr. Modi that the",,
Tribunal ought to have awarded additional compensation under the head of loss of profit, deeserves to be negatived;",,
(iii) That, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/Â under conventional heads, which does not require any modification and that",,
the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation and therefore, First Appeal No.1236/2012 being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.",,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1237/2012 :Â,,
(i) That no evidence is produced by the appellants as regards the income of the injured. Even if, minimum wage standard of a skilled workman is",,
considered as income of the injured, the same would come to Rs.1,000/Â p.m. only. Whereas, the Tribunal has considered the income of the injured at",,
Rs.2,000/Â p.m. Therefore, the appeal is thoroughly misconceived and meritless and the same deserves to be dismissed.",,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1238/2012 :Â,,
(i) That the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased, who was housewife at Rs.1,800/Â p.m. Even considering the standard of living",,
prevailing in the year 1993, income of housewife at Rs.1,800/Â p.m. without there being any evidence on record, is appropriate and therefore, the",,
same does not require any alteration;,,
(ii) That considering the fact that the accident has occurred on 08.05.1993, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any prospective income;",,
(iii) Similarly, correct multiplier has been applied and even considering the date of accident, amount of compensation under the different conventional",,
heads also does not require any alteration.,,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1239/2012 :Â,,
(i) Relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.S.R.T.C Vs. Manubhai P. Patel [2000 (3) GLH (UJ) 7], it was",,
contended that when the income is fluctuating and not fixed, average of 3 years is rightly taken by the Tribunalto determine the income of the",,
deceased, which does not require any modification;",,
(ii) That, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shashikala & Ors (supra), as relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant would not be",,
applicable in the present case;,,
C/FA/1236/2012 JUDGMENT,,
(iii) It was also contended that the Tribunal has committed no error in not appreciating any prospective income considering the fact that the accident,,
has occurred on 08.05.1993 and therefore, the appellants woul d not be entitled to benefit of prospective income to the tune of 40 %. Even considering",,
the date of accident, the amount of compensation under different conventional head also does not require any alteration.",,
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has therefore, submitted that, the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.",,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1240/2012 :Â,,
(i) That the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased, who was minor aged 9 years at Rs.1,500/Â p.m. and the Tribunal has",,
committed no error in granting total compensation of Rs.1,55,000/Â;",,
(ii) That the judgment of the Apex Court as relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, would not be applicable in the present case;",,
(iii) That considered the income of the deceased, who was housewife at Rs.1,800/Â p.m is proper. Even considering the standard of living prevailing in",,
the year of accident i.e. 1993, income of housewife at Rs.1,800/Â p.m without there being any evidence on record, is appropriate and the same does",,
not require any alteration;,,
(iv) Considering the date of accident, amount of compensation under the different conventional heads also does not require any alteration.",,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1241/2012 :Â,,
(i) That the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased, who was housewife at Rs.1,800/Â p.m. Even considering the standard of living",,
prevailing in the year 1993, income of housewife at Rs.1,800/Â p.m. without there being any evidence on record, is appropriate and therefore, the",,
same does not require any alteration;,,
(ii) That considering the fact that the accident has occurred on 08.05.1993, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any prospective income;",,
(iii) Similarly, correct multiplier has been applied and even considering the date of accident, amount of compensation under the different conventional",,
heads also does not require any alteration.,,
On the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that all these appeals are meritless and the Tribunal has awarded just",,
compensation, which does not require any interference of this Court and the same deserves to be dismissed.",,
No other or further submissions have been made by learned counsel for the parties.,,
Though the learned advocates have made the submissions appealwise, we shall deal with the each appeal separately as under:",,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1236 OF 2012 :Â,,
a) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing original record and proceedings as well as the impugned judgment and award, the",,
Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs.22,350/Â p.a. Though it is contended by Mr.Modi, that the appellants would be entitled to get",,
compensation under the head of loss of profit, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was in any regular business of land dealing or",,
any business thereon and therefore, in absence of any evidence on record, the appellants would not be entitled to any compensation under the head of",,
loss of profit. However, we find that the Tribunal has not granted prospective income. Only because the accident has occurred in the year 1993,",,
considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC,,
121], and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the tune of 40 %. Having come",,
to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants would be entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under:",,
Rs.23,500/Â Income p.a.",,
+ Rs.09,400/Â 40 % prospective income",,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.32,900/Â",,
 Rs.8225/ 1/4 deduction towards personal,,
expenses,,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.24,675/Â",,
b) As the deceased was 35 years on the date of accident, the appellants would be entitled to multiplier of 16 and thus, the appellants would be entitled",,
to Rs.3,94,800/Â as compensation under the loss of dependency.",,
c) Over and above the same, the appellants would also be entitled to get compensation of Rs.30,000/Â additionally under the different conventional",,
heads including funeral expenses as per the Pranay Sethi (supra), as the wife of the deceased died in the same accident, the appellants would be",,
entitled to compensation of Rs.4,24,800/Â.",,
d) As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,07,000/Â, the appellants are entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.1,17,800/Â along with proportionate cost",,
and interest @ 7.5 % p.a from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, respondent No.3 â€" Insurance Company shall deposit",,
said additional amount before the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is partly",,
allowed and the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent.,,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1237 OF 2012 :Â,,
a) Present case is a case of injury, wherein the Tribunal has determined the permanent disability of the body as a whole at 18 %, which is not in",,
dispute. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/Â under the head of pain, shock and suffering, Rs.18,000/Â under the head of medical expenses",,
and Rs.6,000/Â under the actual loss of income for three months and Rs.10,000/Â under the head of special diet, attendant charges and transportation.",,
As far as the contention of income, which is raised by learned counsel for the appellants, it deserves to be noted that there is no evidence on record",,
and the appellants not proved the income of the injured or any vocation. The Tribunal has determined the income of the injured at Rs.2,000/Â p.m. and",,
even in absence of any evidence, the income which is determined by the Tribunal is compared with the minimum wage standard prevailing on the date",,
of accident, the same is double than what was minimum wage standard for a skilled workman is provided for.",,
b) In light of the aforesaid and considering the evidence adduced by the appellants, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in",,
determining the income of the injured. Compensation awarded under the other heads and the total compensation of Rs.1,00,160/Â with 7.5 % interest",,
from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization as awarded by the Tribunal, in the facts of the case, is just and proper, which does not require",,
any alteration by this Court and therefore, First Appeal No.1237/2012 is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.",,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1238 OF 2012 :Â,,
a) The contention raised by learned counsel for the parties in this appeal is to the effect that the income of the deceased, who was 32 years old",,
housewife at Rs.1,800/Â p.m is improper and accordingly, learned counsel for the appellants, the same should be at least Rs.3,000/Â p.m. It is a",,
matter of fact that the appellants have not led any evidence as regards the income of the deceased. It is also matter of fact that, the deceased was",,
housewife. Considering the fact that the accident has occurred 08.05.1993, income of the deceased (housewife) can safely be assessed at",,
Rs.2,500/Â p.m instead of Rs.1,800/Â p.m. The appellants would also be entitled to prospective income and it cannot be said that only because of the",,
accident has occurred in the year 1993, the appellants would not be entitled to prospective income. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in",,
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as the age of the deceased was 32 years, the appellants would be entitled to increase in income by way of",,
prospective income to the extent of 40 %.,,
b) Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under :",,
+ Rs.1,000/Â 40 % prospective income",,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.3,500/Â",,
 Rs. 875/ 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses,,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.2,625/Â",,
X12 Months,,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.31,500/Â",,
c) As the deceased was 32 years old on the date of accident, the appellants would be entitled to multiplier of 16 and thus, the appellants would be",,
entitled to Rs.5,04,000/Â as compensation under the head of loss of dependency.",,
d) As the husband of the deceased Virjibhai expired in the same accident, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.30,000/Â as additional compensation",,
under the head of conventional head including the funeral expenses as per the judgment of the Pranay Sethi (supra) and thus, the appellants would be",,
entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,34,000/Â.",,
e) As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,79,200/Â, the appellants are entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.2,54,800/Â along with proportionate cost",,
and interest @ 7.5 % p.a from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, respondent No.3 â€" Insurance Company shall deposit",,
said additional amount before the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is partly",,
allowed and the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent.,,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1239 OF 2012 :Â,,
a) It is found from the award that the Tribunal while determining the income has considered the income tax returns of last 3 years and by taking a,,
mean of the same, compensation under the head of loss of dependency of Rs.3,61,000/Â. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record in form of",,
income tax returns at Exh:114, it is found that the said return for the assessment year 1992Â 93 came to be filed on 16.07.1993, which establishes that",,
the income tax returns was filed within the statutory time as granted under the Income Tax Act. Only because the same is filed after sad demise of,,
the deceased, it cannot be said that the same is irrelevant. As the date of accident is 08.05.1993 and naturally first occasion to file income tax return",,
would come from the month of July, 1993.",,
b) The Apex Court in the case of Shashikala & Ors. (supra), has observed thus in para 9 and 15 :",,
“9. The deceased was aged 45 years and was doing transport business. Though the claimants have filed income tax returns for two Assessment,,
Years 2005Â2006 and 2006Â2007, as per the income tax returns for the year 2006Â 2007, the income of the assessee was Rs.2,02,911. The Tribunal",,
did not take the income of the deceased for Assessment Year 2006Â2007 on the ground that only xerox copy was filed and the claimants have failed,,
to examine the Income Tax Authorities to prove the same. Instead of taking the income of the deceased as per Assessment Year 2006Â2007, the",,
High Court has chosen to calculate the average of the income for two Assessment Years 2005Â 2006 and 2006Â2007. Considering the age of the,,
deceased and the nature of business he was doing, in my considered view, the High Court was not justified in so taking the average of income of the",,
two assessment years. The deceased was aged 45 years and doing business. Admittedly, he was also owning agricultural lands. Even though",,
agricultural income was not shown in the income tax return, it emerges from the evidence that the deceased was also doing agricultural work.",,
Without adverting to the issue whether additions are to be made towards future prospects or not, as it is obligatory on the part of the Court to",,
award just compensation, considering the age of the deceased and the nature of business he was doing, in my view, the income of the deceased as",,
stated in the income tax return for the year 2006Â2007 i.e. Rs.2,02,911 may be taken as the income of the deceased. Ten per cent of the said amount",,
i.e. Rs.20,290 is to be deducted towards income tax and the remaining comes to Rs.1,82,620. The amount to be deducted for professional tax is",,
Rs.2,400 and after deducting the same, the balance comes out to Rs 1.80.220. The income from the house property for the year 2006Â2007 is shown",,
to be Rs.20,000 and after deducting the same. the net amount comes to Rs.1,60,220. Deducting 1/4th (oneÂfourth) towards personal expenses which",,
comes out to Rs 40.055. the loss of dependency/loss of contribution is arrived at Rs.1,20,165 per annum.â€",,
c) In view of the aforesaid, we deem it fit to determine the income of the deceased based upon the last income tax return i.e. return for the",,
assessment year 1992Â93, wherein the income of the deceased is shown as Rs.34,998/Â p.a. and upon reappreciation of the evidence on record",,
being Exh:114, we find that no tax was leviable and therefore, nothing is deducted towards the income tax.",,
d) Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under:",,
Rs.34,998/Â Income p.a.",,
Rs.15,200/Â 40 % prospective income",,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.50,198/Â",,
Rs.12,549/Â 1/4 towards personal expenses",,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.37,649/Â",,
x 15 Multiplier,,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.5,64,735/Â",,
e) Over and above the same, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/Â under the conventional head as per the judgment of the Pranay Sethi",,
(supra) and thus, the appellants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,34,735/Â.",,
f) As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,61,000/Â, the appellants are entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.2,73,735/Â along with proportionate cost",,
and interest @ 7.5 % p.a from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, respondent No.3 â€" Insurance Company shall deposit",,
said additional amount before the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is partly",,
allowed and the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent.,,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1240 OF 2012 :Â,,
a) In the present appeal, the victim is minor boy aged 9 years, who lost his life in the accident. The Tribunal has considered income of the deceased at",,
Rs.1,500/Â p.m only.",,
b) Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record and considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. (supra),",,
in the facts of the case, if the income of the minor is determined at Rs.2,500/Â p.m and applying appropriate multiplier of 15, the appellants would be",,
entitled to Rs.2,25,000/Â and further, the appellants would also be entitled to compensation under the head of conventional head and thus, in the",,
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and as claimed by the original claimants, we deem it appropriate to award lumpÂsum compensation of",,
Rs.2,50,000/Â.",,
c) As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,55,000/Â, the appellants are entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.95,000/Â along with proportionate cost",,
and interest @ 7.5 % p.a from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, respondent No.3 â€" Insurance Company shall deposit",,
said additional amount before the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is partly",,
allowed and the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent.,,
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1241 OF 2012 :Â,,
a) The contention raised by learned counsel for the parties in this appeal is to the effect that the income of the deceased, who was 40 years old",,
housewife at Rs.1,800/Â p.m is improper and accordingly, learned counsel for the appellants, the same should be at least Rs.3,000/Â p.m. It is a",,
matter of fact that the appellants have not led any evidence as regards the income of the deceased. It is also matter of fact that, the deceased was",,
housewife. Considering the fact that the accident has occurred 08.05.1993, income of the deceased (housewife) can safely be assessed at",,
Rs.2,500/Â p.m instead of Rs.1,800/Â p.m. The appellants would also be entitled to prospective income and it cannot be said that only because of the",,
accident has occurred in the year 1993, the appellants would not be entitled to prospective income. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in",,
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as the age of the deceased was 40 years, the appellants would be entitled to increase in income by way of",,
prospective income to the extent of 25 %.,,
b) Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under :",,
Rs.2,500/Â Income p.m.",,
+ Rs. 625/Â 25 % prospective income,,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.3,125/Â",,
 Rs. 781/ 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses,,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.2,344/Â",,
X12 Months,,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,
Rs.28,128/Â",,
c) Additionally, the appellants would be entitled to multiplier of 15 and thus, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.4,21,920/Â as compensation under",,
the head of loss of dependency;,,
d) As the husband of the deceased Labhuben has injured in the same accident, the appellants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/Â as additional",,
compensation under the head of conventional head as per the judgment of the Pranay Sethi (supra) and thus, the appellants would be entitled to total",,
compensation of Rs.4,91,920/Â;",,
e) As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,56,800/Â, the appellants are entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.2,35,120/Â along with proportionate cost",,
and interest @ 7.5 % p.a from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, respondent No.3 â€" Insurance Company shall deposit",,
said additional amount before the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is partly",,
allowed and the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent.,,
For the foregoing, First Appeal Nos.1236, 1238, 1239, 1240 and 1241 of 2012 are partly allowed and First Appeal No.1237 of 2012 is dismissed.",,
However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Civil Applications also stand disposed of. Record and proceedings be sent back",,
to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.,,