{"id":233395,"date":"2010-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-13T10:58:36","modified_gmt":"2015-08-13T05:28:36","slug":"national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/257\/2010\t 19\/ 19\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 257 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 1560 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nFIRST APPEAL No. 257 of 2010\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nNATIONAL\nINSURANCE CO. LTD REG.OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCHHEDILAL\nRAMFAL VARMA & 7 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSUNIL B PARIKH for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1 -\n8. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh appearing on behalf of appellant
\n  insurance company.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nappellant has challenged amount of Rs.1,50,000\/- in present appeal.
\nThe appellant has challenged award passed by MACT, Nadiad in MACP
\nNo.193 of 2005 decided on 31st
\nJanuary 2009 Ex.48. The claims tribunal has awarded Rs.3,06,900\/-
\nwith 9% interest in favour of claimant. The claimants have filed
\napplication under Sec.163A of MV Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\naccident occurred on 14th
\nMarch 2005. The deceased Kashiram Varma was proceeding from Umreth
\ntowards Dakor on scooter bearing registration No.GJ-7-Q-1647
\nof ownership of opponent No.1 as a pillion rider and the said scooter
\nwas being driven by
\nopponent No.1 in slow speed on correct side of road. When they
\nreached near the Sim of village Umreth Crossing No.27, at that time,
\nopponent No.5 came in excessive speed with vehicle bearing Truck
\nNo.GJ-7-Z-9095, dashed with scooter. As a result, scooter dashed with
\ntruck bearing No.GJ-7-X-7821 coming from opposite direction. As a
\nresult, he sustained serious injuries and due to injuries, he died on
\nthe spot. \tTotal claim was made for Rs.4,65,500\/-. Opponent Nos.1, 3,
\n4, 6 and 7, though served, but not appeared and represented before
\nclaims tribunal. Learned advocate for insurance company was appeared
\nand filed reply at Ex.23 and Ex.41 denying averments made in claim
\npetition. The claims tribunal has considered the object of Section
\n163A of MV Act in paragraphs 5 and 6, which are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 5.\tIt
\nis settled proposition of law that the application U\/s.163-A of MV
\nAct is substantive application and award passed on the basis of such
\napplication is final, Sub-section-2 of Section 163-A of the MV Act
\nprovides that in any claim for compensation under Sub-section-1, the
\nclaimants shall not be required to plead or establish that death or
\npermanent disability in respect of which the claim has been made was
\ndue to any wrongful act or negligent or default of the driver of the
\nvehicle.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIt
\nis also a settled proposition of law that once the motor vehicle
\ninvolved in the accident is insured for the relevant period, the
\nInsurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay
\ncompensation to the claimants merely on the ground of breach of any
\nterms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by the insured. If at
\nall, there is any breach of any terms and condition of the Insurance
\nPolicy by the insured, at the most, the Insurance Company may be
\nentitled to recover the amount from the insured, but the Insurance
\nCompany is liable to pay compensation to the claimants (vide United
\nIndia Insurance Company vs. Lehru<\/a> 2003) SCC 338 = 2003 (2) GLH 256
\n(para 15 & 17), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamla, AIR 2001
\nSC 1419 = 2001(4) SCC 3421 (para 22) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
\nVs. Rula AIR 2000 SC 1082 = 2003(3) SCC 195 (para 12 & 13).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nclaimant has produced certain documents as referred in paragraph 7
\nwhich are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 7.\tIn
\nsupport of the claim petition, the claimants have place reliance on
\nthe following documents produced at list Exh.6, 24, 36 and 45 :\n<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof complaint mark 6\/1<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof panchnama mark 6\/2<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof inquest panchnama mark 6\/3<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof R.C. Book of scooter bearing No.GJ-7-Q-1647 mark 6\/4<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof insurance policy of scooter mark 6\/5<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof R.C. Book of truck No.GJ-7-X-7821 mark 6\/6<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof insurance policy of truck No.GJ-7-X-7821 mark 6\/7<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof R.C. Book of truck No.GJ-7-Z-9095 mark 6\/8<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof insurance policy of truck No.GJ-7-Z-9095 mark 6\/9<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof post mortem note of deceased Kashiram mark 24\/1<\/p>\n
\tCopy
\n\tof chargesheet mark 24\/2<\/p>\n
\tSalary
\n\tcertificate of deceased mark 24\/3 36\/1<\/p>\n
\tCertified
\n\tcopy of judgment delivered in M.A.C.P. Case No.141\/2005 mark 45\/1 <\/p>\n
\tThe
\nage of deceased Kashiram as per affidavit Ex.25 was 29 years and as
\nper postmortem note at mark 24\/1, was aged about 30 years. The
\ndeceased was doing work of Plaster of Paris and monthly getting
\nRs.3,000\/-. In support of that one Ram Ujagar Varma has stated on
\naffidavit Ex.37 that he is residing at Vidhyanagar
\nand doing work of Plaster of Paris, etc., with the help of labourer.
\nAccording to his evidence Ex.37, deceased was doing work of Plaster
\nof Paris and
\nhe was getting Rs.100\/- daily wage and one certificate also produced
\non record at Mark 4\/3. Therefore, claims tribunal has assessed income
\nRs.2,100\/- monthly and 1\/3rd
\nhas been deducted as per second schedule and 18 multiplier has been
\napplied, accordingly, it comes to Rs.3,02,400\/- being a family
\ndependency loss, then, Rs.2,500\/- being a loss of estate and
\nRs.2,000\/- being a funeral charges awarded.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Parikh relied upon two decisions of Apex Court and
\npointed out that deceased was unmarried, therefore, age of claimant
\nis to be considered and proper multiplier is 8 and Rs.1,400\/-
\ndependency is on higher side. He relied upon decision of Division
\nBench of this Court reported in 23(1) GLR 785 and 26(2) GLR 1315. He
\nalso relied upon decision of Apex Court reported in 1999 ACJ 1400. In
\nsuch cases, dependency comes to 1\/3rd
\nnot 2\/3rd
\nas decided by Apex Court. Therefore, according to his submission that
\nbecause deceased was unmarried, 1\/3rd
\ndependency is available to claimant, 18 multiplier is on higher side,
\nbecause, age of deceased is not to be considered while applying
\nmultiplier, but, age of claimant is to be considered. He relied upon
\nrecent decision of Apex Court in case of Reshmakumari v. Madanmohan
\nreported in 2009 AIR SCW 6909 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
\nGurumallama reported in 2009 AIR
\nSCW 7434. He submitted that in case of Reshmakumari, Apex Court has
\nreferred the matter to larger Bench while deciding 166 application,
\nwhether second
\nschedule is made applicable or not. The identical question has been
\nexamined by this Court in First Appeal No.101 of 2010 on 29th
\nJanuary 2010 in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Com. Ltd. v.
\nKanji Bachubhai Ayar and others, where similar question has been
\ndecided elaborately discussed the similar question raised before this
\nCourt by learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati who was appearing on
\nbehalf of insurance company, who relied upon both decisions which
\nhave been relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Parikh. The relevant
\ndiscussion is made in aforesaid First Appeal in paragraphs 4 to 8,
\nwhich are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 4.0\tRelying
\nupon aforesaid two decisions, learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati raised
\ncontention that the Claims Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000\/- as
\nmonthly income of the deceased, which yearly comes to Rs.36,000\/- and
\nconsidering age of the deceased 19 years, multiplier of 16 has been
\napplied.  Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has committed gross error
\nin relying upon annual income of Rs.36,000\/- and considered
\nRs.6,84,000\/- being amount of compensation and after deduction of
\n1\/3rd amount, which comes to Rs.4,60,500\/-, as awarded by
\nthe Claims Tribunal.  The total amount of compensation available as
\nper Second Schedule to the claimant when yearly income of the
\ndeceased comes to Rs.36,000\/- then it comes to Rs.6,84,000\/- after
\ndeducting 1\/3rd amount Rs.2,28,000\/- remaining amount
\ncomes to Rs.4,56,000\/- and Rs.2,000\/- has been awarded towards
\nFuneral Expenses and Rs.2,500\/- has been awarded towards Loss of
\nEstate.  The total amount comes to Rs.4,60,500\/-.  But, learned
\nAdvocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that such calculation is not correct
\nand Second Schedule has been found by the Honourable Apex Court
\nerroneous.  Therefore, according to his calculation from Rs.3,000\/-
\nmonthly income if 1\/3rd is deducted then it comes to
\nRs.2,000\/- and yearly income comes to Rs.24,000\/- and then applying a
\nmultiplier of 16 at an age of 19 years, it comes to Rs.3,84,000\/-
\ntowards Loss of Dependency and thereafter, Rs.2,500\/- towards Loss of
\nEstate and Rs.2,000\/- towards Funeral Expenses, in all comes to
\nRs.3,88,500\/- and not Rs.4,60,500\/-.  Therefore, there is an excess
\nof Rs.72,000\/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal, which found apparently
\na calculation error while considering Second Schedule r\/w. Section
\n163A of the Act.  Except this, no other submission has been made by
\nlearned Advocate Mr. Nanavati.\n<\/p>\n
5.0\tI
\nhave considered submissions made by learned Advocate
\nMr. Nanavati
\nand I have also considered both decisions of the Honourable Apex
\nCourt as relied by the learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati as referred
\nabove.  In the case of Gurumallamma, the Honourable Apex Court has
\nclearly observed that, “Multiplier stricto sensu is not
\napplicable in the case of fatal accident.  The multiplier would be
\napplicable only in case of disability in non-fatal accidents as would
\nappear from the Note 5 appended to the Second Schedule.  Thus, even
\nif the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and
\nthe income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.3,300\/- per month, the
\namount of compensation payable would be somewhat between 6,84,000\/-
\nto Rs.7,60,000\/-.  As the Second Schedule provides for a structured
\nformula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by
\napplication of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a
\nproceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166
\nwould not arise. The Tribunals in a proceeding under Section 163A of
\nthe Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as
\nspecified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the
\nmultiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities.”
\nSimilarly, in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) in Para 38, the
\nHonourable Apex Court has observed that,  Second Schedule refers to
\nSec. 163A of the 1988 Act, which as noticed hereinbefore, provides
\nfor quantum of compensation to third party in case of fatal accidents
\nor injuries suffered.  It provides for a table.  It specifies the
\namount requires to be paid to legal heirs \/ representatives of the
\ndeceased in the case of fatal accident and the claims in the case of
\ninjuries suffered by them depending upon his age and annual income as
\nspecified therein .\n<\/p>\n
5.1\tThereafter,
\nin Para 40 of the said decision, the Honourable Apex Court has
\nobserved that,  It, however, appears to us that there is no mistake
\ntherein.  Amount of compensation specified in the Second Schedule
\nonly is required to be paid even if a higher or lower amount can be
\nsaid to be the quantum of compensation upon applying the multiplier
\nsystem .  In the same decision, in Para 41, the Honourable Apex
\nCourt has observed that,  The multiplier, in terms of the Second
\nSchedule, is required to be applied in a case of disability in
\nnon-fatal accident.  Consideration for payment of compensation in the
\ncase of death in a ‘no fault liability’ case vis-?-vis the amount of
\ncompensation payable in a case of permanent total disability and
\npermanent partial disability in terms of Second Schedule is to be
\napplied by different norms.   Whereas, in the case of fatal
\naccident the amount specified in the Second Schedule depending upon
\nthe age and income of the deceased is required to be paid  wherefor
\nthe  multiplier is not to be applied at all but in a
\ncase involving permanent total disability or permanent partial
\ndisability the amount of compensation payable is required to be
\narrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier
\napplicable to the age of the injured as on the date of determining
\nthe  compensation and in case of permanent partial disablement
\nsuch percentage of compensation, which would have been payable in the
\ncase of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) of
\nthe Second Schedule .\n<\/p>\n
6.0\tIn
\nview of the above observations made in both the cases by the same
\nDivision Bench of the Honourable Apex Court deciding the question on
\n23rd July 2009, it is made clear that in case of fatal
\naccident, multiplier system is not to be applied but only annual
\nincome of deceased r\/w. compensation in case of death between a
\nparticular age, the figure, which has been given against that column
\nis only to be taken into account.  Therefore, in this case,
\nconsidering Rs.36,000\/- as annual income and age of deceased as 19
\nyears, a multiplier of 16 is not to be applied but only to consider
\nthe amount of compensation in case of death, which has been mention
\nbelow annual income of Rs.36,000\/-, which comes to Rs.6,84,000\/-,
\nwhich has been rightly arrived at by the Claims Tribunal, after
\nproper reading and understanding the Second Schedule and thereafter,
\nit requires to be deducted 1\/3rd amount in consideration
\nof the expenses, which the victim would have incurred towards
\nmaintaining himself had he been alive.  Therefore, according to my
\nopinion, Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted the method by not
\napplying the multiplier but considering the annual income of the
\ndeceased and compensation in case of death, which comes to,
\nconsidering the age of 19 years, Rs.6,84,000\/- has been properly
\nassessed and thereafter, rightly deducted 1\/3rd amount for
\ndoing so, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error which
\nrequires interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.0\tIn
\nview of both the above decisions of the Honourable Apex Court,
\naccording to my opinion, the Honourable Apex Court has made it clear
\nin both the cases that multiplier method is to be applied in case of
\ninjury means non-fatal accident but in case of fatal accident,
\nmultiplier method of Second Schedule is not applicable but Claims
\nTribunal has to consider only annual income of the deceased and the
\nage of deceased and amount of compensation in case of death given in
\nSecond Schedule is to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
8.0\tTherefore,
\nsubmissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati in Ground  D
\nof the Appeal Memo that after deducting 1\/3rd amount from
\nthe monthly income of Rs.3,000\/-, a multiplier of 16 has been
\napplied, which cannot be made applicable in case of death.
\nTherefore, the contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati in
\nrespect of applicability of Second Schedule in case of death is
\nconfusing himself and also creating confusion before this Court  and
\nwithout going into entire decisions in both the cases cannot be
\naccepted as in both decisions it has been made clear that multiplier
\nmethod of Second Schedule r\/w. Sec. 163A is applicable only in case
\nof injury only and it is irrelevant and not applicable such
\nmultiplier method in case of death and in such circumstances, in case
\nof death Claims Tribunal has to consider the annual income of
\ndeceased, age of deceased and compensation workout in the Second
\nSchedule in case of death is to be considered and thereafter to
\ndeduct 1\/3rd amount, whatever amount come that is the
\namount of compensation available to the claimant.  That method has
\nbeen rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal and accordingly,
\ncompensation has been rightly worked out, for that, according to my
\nopinion, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error, which
\nrequires any interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
8.1\tThe
\ncontention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati before this Court
\nthat the Claims Tribunal has committed error in calculation of
\ncompensation.  He relied upon multiplier of 16.  Considering age of
\ndeceased, it comes within 15 to 20 years.  He relied upon decision of
\nthe Honourable Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) that
\nsaid question has been referred to the Larger Bench, which is not
\ncorrect.  The question, which has been referred by the Honourable
\nApex Court is that, when claimant files application under Sec. 166 to
\nbe decided on ‘fault liability’, in such case, claimant may not get
\nsame amount of compensation which available to claimant if
\napplication is filed under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
\nTherefore, a large question, which has been posed by the Honourable
\nApex Court in Paras 43 and 44 of the said judgment, are quoted as
\nunder, which give clear picture that which question has been referred
\nto the Larger Bench.\n<\/p>\n
43.\tThus,
\nprima facie, it appears that the multiplier mentioned in the Second
\nSchedule, although in a given case, may be taken to be a guide but
\nthe same is not decisive. To our mind, although a probable amount of
\ncompensation as specified in the Second Schedule in the event the age
\nof victim is 17 or 20 years and his annual income is Rs.40,000\/-, his
\nheirs\/ legal representatives is to receive a sum of Rs.7,60,000\/-,
\nhowever, if an application for grant of compensation is filed in
\nterms of Section 166 of the 1988 Act that much amount may not be
\npaid, although in the former case the amount of compensation is to be
\ndetermined on the basis of `no fault liability  and in the later on
\n`fault liability  In the aforementioned situation the Courts, we
\nopine, are required to lay down certain principles.\n<\/p>\n
44.\tWe
\nare not unmindful of the Statement of Objects and Reasons to Act 54
\nof 1994 for introducing Section 163-A so as to provide for a new
\npredetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident
\nvictims on the basis of age\/income, which is more liberal and
\nrational. That may be so, but it defies logic as to why in a similar
\nsituation, the injured claimant or his heirs\/legal representatives,
\nin the case of death, on proof of negligence on the part of the
\ndriver of a motor vehicle would get a lesser amount than the one
\nspecified in the Second Schedule. The Courts, in our opinion, should
\nalso bear that factor in mind.\n<\/p>\n
8.2\tAccording
\nto the Honourable Apex Court, Sec. 163A r\/w. Second Schedule, which
\nis more liberal and rational than why in a similar situation, the
\ninjured claimant or his legal heirs\/representatives in the case of
\ndeath on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of a motor
\nvehicle would get a lesser amount than one specified in the Second
\nSchedule.  The Court, in our opinion, should also bear that factor in
\nmind. So, this question referred to the Larger Bench by the
\nHonourable Apex Court.  But question  which has been raised before
\nthis Court is not referred to the Larger Bench by the Honourable Apex
\nCourt.  Therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati
\ncannot be accepted because in the facts of the present case,
\napplication filed by claimant under Sec. 163A of the Act and
\nconsidering age of deceased 19 years and annual income Rs.36,000\/-,
\nthe total amount of compensation comes to Rs.6,84,000\/- then to
\ndeduct 1\/3rd amount then amount comes to Rs.4,56,000\/-.
\nIn such circumstances, the calculation suggested by learned Advocate
\nMr. Nanavati that instead of that annual income of deceased is to be
\nconsidered Rs.24,000\/- and to apply 16 multipliers.  That contention
\nof Mr. Nanavati is totally contrary to Sec. 163A r\/w. Second
\nSchedule, because Second Schedule having a particular condition in
\nItem No. 5, which is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
“5.\tDisability
\nin non-fatal accidents:\n<\/p>\n
The
\nfollowing compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the
\nvictim arising out of non-fatal accidents:\n<\/p>\n
Loss
\nof income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding
\nfifty two weeks.\n<\/p>\n
PLUS
\neither of the following:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tIn
\ncase of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be
\narrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier
\napplicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or<\/p>\n
(b)\tIn
\ncase of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation
\nwhich would have been payable in the case of permanent total
\ndisablement as specified under item (a) above.\n<\/p>\n
Injuries
\ndeemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement\/Permanent Partial
\nDisablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as
\nper Schedule I under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.”\n<\/p>\n
8.3\tSo,
\nmultiplier is applicable to in case of disability in non-fatal
\naccident only and multiplier is not applicable in case of fatal
\naccident.  Not only that but looking to annual income of deceased, in
\ncase of fatal accident against respective age of deceased whatever
\ncompensation available to claimant in case of death considering
\nannual income that amount of compensation is to be worked out first
\nand then to deduct 1\/3rd from that amount and thereafter,
\nwhatever amount comes it considered to be a dependency of claimant.
\nIn Sec. 163A question of considering future prospective amount does
\nnot arise.  Not only that in case of deceased being an unmarried, age
\nof parents or claimant is not necessary to consider but strictly to
\ncalculate the compensation or to workout it, consider Second Schedule
\nitself.  Therefore, calculation suggested by learned Advocate Mr.
\nNanavati in Ground ‘D’ of Appeal Memo cannot be accepted because such
\ntheory is not acceptable in light of Second Schedule as well as both
\ndecisions of Honourable Apex Court as referred above also held it
\nthat in case of fatal accident question of multiplier is not
\napplicable but it applies only in case of disability in non-fatal
\naccident and in case of death, compensation is to be worked out on
\nannual income of deceased considering amount of compensation given
\nagainst column of age is to be worked out and thereafter, to deduct
\n1\/3rd amount of expenses.  This is the correct and legal
\nformula recognized by statutory provisions. Therefore, confusion
\ncreated by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted.  Though,
\nlaw and Sec. 163A r\/w. Second Schedule are very clear, there is no
\nambiguity at all so which require to refer such question to the
\nLarger Bench by the Honourable Apex Court.  In fact, this question is
\nnot referred by Honourable Apex Court in case of Reshma Kumari.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nlight of aforesaid observations made by this Court, contentions
\nraised by learned advocate Mr. Parikh cannot be accepted, hence,
\nrejected, as while deciding 163A application, claims tribunal has to
\nconsider entire matter for calculating or working out compensation
\nstrictly on the basis of annual income of deceased and compensation
\nwhich has been worked out as per second schedule considering age of
\ndeceased, thereafter, whatever compensation is worked out as per
\nsecond schedule, then, 1\/3rd
\namount is to be deducted being a personal expenses of deceased and
\nwhatever amount comes to is considered to be a dependency
\nof claimant. The multiplier method is not applicable in case of death
\nwhile deciding 163A application filed by claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\namount of compensation which has been worked out by claims tribunal
\nis found to be just, proper and reasonable which cannot consider to
\nbe on higher side and claims tribunal has not committed any error
\nwhich requires interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\nthere is no substance in present first appeal. Accordingly, present
\nfirst appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen
\nfirst appeal is dismissed by this Court today, no order is required
\nto be passed in civil application. Hence, civil application is
\ndisposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\namount, if any, deposited by appellant before registry of this Court,
\nbe transmitted to claims tribunal concerned, immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[H.K.\n<\/p>\n
RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n
#Dave<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/257\/2010 19\/ 19 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 257 of 2010 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1560 of 2010 In FIRST APPEAL No. 257 of 2010 ========================================================= NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNational vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-13T05:28:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T05:28:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3741,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010\",\"name\":\"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T05:28:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-13T05:28:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T05:28:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010"},"wordCount":3741,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010","name":"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T05:28:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-chhedilal-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National vs Chhedilal on 11 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=233395"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233395\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}