{"id":94519,"date":"2010-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-30T02:17:31","modified_gmt":"2018-06-29T20:47:31","slug":"national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"National vs Pritamsinh on 11 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
National vs Pritamsinh 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\/254\/2010\t 12\/ 14\tORDER \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 254 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 1545 of 2009\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL\nINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPRITAMSINH\nNATWARSINH CHAUHAN & 3 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMS\nMEGHA JANI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,\n1.2.3,1.2.4 -\n4. \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\nDate\n: 11\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani appearing on behalf of
\n\tappellant-National Insurance Company Limited. The appellant
\n\tInsurance Company has challenged the award passed by Motor Accident
\n\tClaims Tribunal, Godhra in MACP No.1707\/2002 Exhibit 34 decided on
\n\t16.05.2009. Before Claims Tribunal, Godhra, respondents No.1 and 2
\n\tremained absent and appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. has
\n\tappeared. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,86,000\/= being amount of
\n\tcompensation in favour of respondent claimant with 7.5% interest.
\n\tClaim petition was filed by claimant under Section 166 of Motors
\n\tVehicle Act.  Claim petition arises out of an accident which took
\n\tplace on 15.12.2001 as the deceased   Mahendrasinh Natwarsinh
\n\tChauhan who was going on his bicycle was dashed by a Jeep bearing
\n\tregistration No.GJ-17-C-4911. Claims Tribunal held the driver of the
\n\tjeep negligent for the accident and awarded compensation of
\n\tRs.6,86,000\/= to the claimant and it was challenged by appellant to
\n\tthe extent of Rs.2,79,000\/= only.  Learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani
\n\tsubmitted  that income of deceased has been wrongly assessed by
\n\tClaims Tribunal as Rs.3,000\/= without any cogent evidence being
\n\tproduced by claimant.  She further stated that the deceased was
\n\tunmarried. Therefore, as per recent decision of Apex Court in the
\n\tcase of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others V. Delhi Transport
\n\tCorporation and<\/a> another reported in 2009 6 Scale 129
\n\tone half amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses instead
\n\tof deducting 1\/3rd while assessing loss of dependency.
\n\tThe deceased was a bachelor and claimants happened to be brothers of
\n\tthe deceased who were dependents of the deceased.  The legal
\n\trepresentatives of the deceased would be at the most be entitled to
\n\tget the amount towards loss of estate of the deceased.  The
\n\trespondent No.2-Karnavirsinh Mahavirsinh Chauhan  is the nephew of
\n\tthe deceased and he was the adopted son of the deceased but Claims
\n\tTribunal has not accepted this version of the claimant and
\n\ttherefore, has not awarded compensation to respondent No.2.  She
\n\talso submitted that Claims Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the
\n\tdecision of this Court reported in 2005 (2) G.L.H. 85
\n\tincase of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashwin Vrajlal
\n\tRajgor. She submitted that this decision is not applicable
\n\tbecause in absence of any Class I heir, the nephew of the deceased
\n\twho comes within the purview of Class II heir, under Hindu
\n\tSuccession Act is entitled to get compensation. In present case,
\n\twhen representatives of Class I heir are already on record, the
\n\tTribunal ought not to have awarded any amount to respondent No.2, in
\n\tview of deceased who happens to be Class II heir as per the Hindu
\n\tSuccession Act, 1956. The multiplier of 16 adopted by Tribunal is on
\n\thigher side.  The Tribunal ought not to have applied a multiplier of
\n\tmore than 11 considering that real claimants were brothers and
\n\tsister of the deceased aged 53, 48, 46 and 44; except this no other
\n\tsubmissions have been made before this Court by learned Advocate Ms.
\n\tMegha Jani.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani
\n\tand I have also perused the award passed by Claims Tribunal, Godhra.
\n\tThe accident occurred on 15.12.2001 when the deceased going on a
\n\tbicycle on reaching near Village Chenpur and coming from Devgadh
\n\tBaria, in a rash and negligent manner, opponent No.1 driver of Jeep
\n\tNo.GJ-17-C-4911 dashed with the bicycle and resulting in serious
\n\tinjury to Mahendrasinh Natwarsinh Chauhan. Ultimately during
\n\ttreatment after six days on 21.12.2001,  Mahendrasinh Natwarsinh
\n\tChauhan expired because of serious injuries sustained in the
\n\taccident.  First Information Report was lodged against driver of
\n\tjeep in Devgadh Baria Police Station No.249\/01.  Respondents No.1
\n\tand 2 remained absent.  Therefore, ex-parte proceedings were
\n\tinitiated against them.  Insurance Company filed a reply, Exhibit\n<\/p>\n
\t21. Claimant has produced documents vide Exhibit 19 as referred in
\n\tParagraph 4 as under :-\n<\/p>\n
1)
\n\tCopy of medical bills of deceased- Mahendrasinh Natwarsinh Chauhan,
\n\tAnnexures 1 to 22 totalling to Rs.77,679.27.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tCopy
\n\tof First Information Report.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tCopy
\n\tof Panchnama of place of accident.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tCopy
\n\tof Inquest Panchnama of body of the deceased- Mahendrasinh
\n\tNatwarsinh Chauhan.\n<\/p>\n
5)\tCopy
\n\tof Post Mortem note of deceased- Mahendrasinh Natwarsinh Chauhan.\n<\/p>\n
6)\tCopy
\n\tof Driving License of opponent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
7)\tCopy
\n\tof R.C. Book of vehicle involved in the accident.\n<\/p>\n
8)\tCopy
\n\tof Insurance Policy of vehicle involved in the accident.\n<\/p>\n
9)\tCopy
\n\tof chargesheet.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis necessary to note that appellant’s advocate, Ms. Jani has not
\n\tchallenged the question of negligence decided by Claims Tribunal,
\n\tGodhra before this Court.  Therefore, this Court is not examining
\n\tquestion of negligence which has been rightly decided by Claims
\n\tTribunal.  Therefore, issue no.1 has been decided by Claims Tribunal
\n\tconsidering FIR-Exhibit 25 and evidence of claimant.  The driver of
\n\tjeep had not appeared before Claims Tribunal and had not explained
\n\tthe accident and has not filed any reply to claim petition.
\n\tAccording to claimant, deceased was earning Rs.6,000\/= from
\n\tagricultural work and from STD PCO Booth, but no cogent evidence is
\n\tproduced by claimant.   Therefore, considering date of accident as
\n\t15.12.2001 and having income from agricultural work as well as from
\n\tSTD PCO Booth and maintaining a family, Claims Tribunal has assessed
\n\tRs.3,000\/= as being the income of deceased.  Thereafter, future
\n\tprospective income has been considered after deducting 1\/3rd,
\n\tRs.3000\/= amount comes to being a dependency and yearly, it comes to
\n\tRs.36,000\/= and looking to the age of the deceased as 35 years, 16
\n\tmultiplier has been applied and Rs.15,000\/= has been awarded for
\n\tloss of estate and Rs.80,000\/= has been awarded for medical expenses
\n\tand Rs.10,000\/= for pain, shock and suffering and Rs.5,000\/= for
\n\tfuneral expenses and transportation charges.  Hence, the  total
\n\tamount comes to Rs.6,86,000\/=.\n<\/p>\n
A
\n\tcontention was raised by learned Advocate, Ms. Megha Jani that
\n\tdeceased was unmarried. Therefore, 1\/3rd amount is to be
\n\tconsidered as dependency and 2\/3rd amount is to be
\n\tdeducted for personal expenses and relying upon the Apex Court’s
\n\tdecision in case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% amount is
\n\tto be deducted  from income.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Ms. Jani.
\n\tSuch submissions cannot be accepted because deceased was aged 35
\n\tyears which means that deceased was of a marriageable age.
\n\tTherefore, even in near future he must have acquired a family as per
\n\tdecision of Apex Court in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar V.
\n\tBidyadhar Dutta & Ors.<\/a> reported in AIR 2006 SC
\n\t1255.  Relevant paragraphs are quoted as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 The
\n\tdeceased, a young boy of 24 years old, was unmarried and the
\n\tclaimants were his father and mother, the dependency has to be
\n\tcalculated on the basis that within two or three years the deceased
\n\twould have married and raised family and the monthly allowance he
\n\twas giving to his parents would have been cut down.  Thus, in our
\n\tview, the MACT has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the
\n\tclaimants.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tcase of Bilkish V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/a>
\n\treported in 2008 ACJ 1357, relevant paragraph is
\n\tquoted as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 4.
\n\tAfter hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion
\n\tthat the view taken by High Court and Tribunal is not correct. The
\n\tincumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1\/3rd
\n\tof his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned
\n\tby him would certainly go to the family kitty.  Therefore,
\n\tdetermining the loss of dependency by 50 per cent was not correct.
\n\tTherefore, we assess that he must be spending 1\/3rd for
\n\tpersonal use and contributing 2\/3rd of his income to his
\n\tfamily.  Therefore, we work out that Rs.30,000\/= was earned by him
\n\tper annum.  The loss of dependency was 2\/3rd, i.e.,
\n\tRs.20,000.  The multiplier of ’11’ applied for loss of dependency
\n\twas also not correct and as per Schedule appended to the Motor
\n\tVehicles Act, 1988, it should be ’12’.  Applying the multiplier of
\n\t12 the total loss of dependency will be Rs.20,000 x 12 = Rs.2,40,000
\n\tand Rs.10,000 towards loss to estate and funeral expenses, the total
\n\tcompensation comes to Rs.2,50,000 and incumbent is entitled for
\n\tinterest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the
\n\tpetition.  The appeal is allowed within the aforesaid modification.
\n\tIf any amount has already been paid to claimant then that amount may
\n\tbe deducted from the total amount.  Consequently, the appeal is
\n\tallowed in part with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tin view of aforesaid decisions, when the deceased was having a
\n\tmarriageable age and may have acquired a family in near passage of
\n\ttime, even 1\/3rd amount is to be deducted being the
\n\tpersonal expenses of such a deceased. Therefore, in my opinion,
\n\tClaims Tribunal has rightly deducted 1\/3rd amount as
\n\tbeing the personal expenses.  In recent decision of Apex Court in
\n\tcase of Kimlibhai
\n\treported in 2009 6 Supreme 106, wherein a carpenter
\n\twho had died in accident having age of 40 years had not produced
\n\tcogent evidence for proving income of deceased. The accident had
\n\toccurred in the year 1997 even though Apex Court has assessed income
\n\tof carpenter who died in accident at Rs.3,000\/= per month and 17
\n\tmultiplier has been applied considering age of deceased as 40 years.
\n\tTherefore, in light of the recent decision of Apex Court looking to
\n\tage of deceased- Mahendrasinh Natwarsinh Chauhan, 16 multiplier has
\n\tbeen rightly applied by Claims Tribunal.  Hence, Claims Tribunal has
\n\tnot committed any error which requires interference by this Court.
\n\tThe future prospective income of deceased is also rightly considered
\n\tby Claims Tribunal in light of decision of Apex Court in case of
\n\tGeneral Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. Vs. Susamma Thomas reported
\n\tin AIR 1994 SC Page 1631  and in case of
\n\tSmt. Sarla Dixit & Anr. Vs. Balwant Yadav & Anr.
\n\treported in AIR 1996 SC Page 1274 and incase of
\n\tRitaben alias Vanitaben Wd\/o. Dipakbhai Hariram and Anr. Vs.
\n\tAhmedabad Municipal Transport Service
\n\treported in 1998(2) GLH 670.  Therefore,
\n\tno error is committed by Claims Tribunal in considering future
\n\tprospective income of deceased.  Amount of medical expenses are
\n\tbased on medical bills collectively produced vide Exhibit 34 which
\n\tare not disputed by appellant’s Advocate before Claims Tribunal.
\n\tTherefore, in my opinion, the amount passed in favour of the
\n\tclaimant by the Claims Tribunal is reasonable just and proper.\n<\/p>\n
One
\n\tcontention has been raised by appellant-Insurance Company before
\n\tClaims Tribunal that father of Mahendrasinh Natwarsinh Chauhan
\n\texpired during pendency of claim petition. Therefore, present
\n\trespondent No.1\/1 to 1\/4 and respondent No.2 minor are joined as
\n\tlegal heirs and representatives of deceased.  The contention is that
\n\tclaimants now have become the brother and sister and adopted son
\n\tbeing nephew. Therefore, they are not entitled to any amount of
\n\tcompensations because they are not dependents of deceased.  The
\n\tdecision of Apex Court relied upon by claimants before Tribunal in
\n\tthe case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation V.
\n\tRamanbhai Prabhatbhai and Others<\/a> in S.L.P. (Civil)
\n\tNo.2802\/1987 TAC (1950-95) SC Page 198. In the aforesaid
\n\tdecision, Apex Court has examined question as to who is to be
\n\tconsidered as legal representative of deceased. In the aforesaid
\n\tdecision, brother and sister of the deceased are considered to be
\n\tlegal representative and aforesaid decision is relied upon by
\n\tlearned Advocate, Mr. P.R. Desai appearing on behalf of claimants. A
\n\tsecond decision of this Court reported in the case of New
\n\tIndia Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor (supra) is
\n\talso relied by the Advocate of the claimant and on that basis,
\n\tcontention raised by Advocate of Insurance Company has been rejected
\n\tby Claims Tribunal.  The Division Bench of this Court has examined
\n\tthis issue while considering provisions of Hindu Succession Act,
\n\t1956 as discussed in Paragraphs 4 and 5 which are quoted as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 4.
\n\tQuestion with regard to claimants being legal heirs \/ legal
\n\trepresentatives of the deceased should not detain us for long
\n\tkeeping in view the broad and liberal nature of the legislation and
\n\tthe decision of this Court in Megjibhai Khimji Vira and another v.
\n\tChaturbhai Taljabhai and others (AIR 1977 Gujarat 195) wherein the
\n\tDivision Bench speaking through Ahmadi J. (as His Lordship then was)
\n\theld that claims for compensation arising out of the use of a motor
\n\tvehicle can be maintained by the brothers and nephews of the
\n\tdeceased who are legal representatives.  This decision is approved
\n\tby the Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,
\n\tAhmedabad v Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another (AIR 1987 SC 1690).
\n\tIn paragraph 9, the Apex Court said :\n<\/p>\n
 Clauses\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) and (c) of sub-sec.(1) of S.110-A of the Act provide that an
\n\tapplication for compensation arising out of an accident may be made
\n\twhere death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the
\n\tlegal representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly
\n\tauthorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the
\n\tdeceased.  The proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.110_a provides that where
\n\tall the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any
\n\tsuch application for compensation, the application shall be made on
\n\tbehalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the
\n\tdeceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined shall
\n\tbe impleaded as respondents to the application.  The expression
\n\t‘legal representative’ has not been defined in the Act. Section
\n\t2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines ‘legal
\n\trepresentative’ as a person who in law represents the estate of a
\n\tdeceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the
\n\testate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a
\n\trepresentative character the person on whom the estate devolves on
\n\tthe death of the party so suing or sued.  The above definition, no
\n\tdoubt, in terms does not apply to a case before the Claims Tribunal
\n\tbut it has to be stated that even in ordinary parlance the said
\n\texpression is understood almost in the same way in which it is
\n\tdefined in the Code of Civil Procedure.  A legal representative
\n\tordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a
\n\tdeceased person or a person on whom the estate devolvs on the death
\n\tof an individual.  Clause (b) of sub-sec.(1) of S. 110A of the Act
\n\tauthorises all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased
\n\tto make an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal
\n\tfor the death of the deceased on account of a motor vehicle accident
\n\tand Cl.(c) of that sub-section authorises any agent duly authorised
\n\tby all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to make
\n\tit.  The proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.110-A of the Act appears to be of
\n\tsome significance.  It provides that the application for
\n\tcompensation shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all
\n\tthe legal representatives of the deceased.  Section 110-A(1) of the
\n\tAct thus expressly states that (i) an application for compensation
\n\tmay be made by the legal representative of the deceased or their
\n\tagent and (ii) that such application shall be made on behalf of or
\n\tfor the benefit of all the legal representatives.  Both the person
\n\tor persons who can make an application for compensation and the
\n\tperson for whose benefit such application can be made are thus
\n\tindicated in S.110-A of the Act.  This section in a way is
\n\tsubstitute to the extent indicated above for the provisions of S.1A
\n\tof the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which provides that  every such
\n\taction or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent
\n\tand child, if any, of the person whose death shall have been so
\n\tcaused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor,
\n\tadministrator or representative of the person deceased.  While the
\n\tFatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides that such suit shall be for the
\n\tbenefit of the wife, husband, parent and child of the deceased,
\n\tS.110-A(1) of the Act says that the application shall be made on
\n\tbehalf of or for the benefit of the legal representatives of the
\n\tdeceased.  A legal representative in a given case need not
\n\tnecessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.  It is further
\n\tseen from S.110-B of the Act that Claims Tribunal is authorised to
\n\tmake an award determining the amount of compensation which appears
\n\tto it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom
\n\tcompensation shall be paid.  This provisions takes the place of the
\n\tthird paragraph of S.1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which
\n\tprovides that in every such action, the Court may give such damages
\n\tas it may think proportioned to the loss resulting from such death
\n\tto the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such
\n\taction shall be brought.  Persons for whose benefit such an
\n\tapplication can be made and the manner in which the compensation
\n\tawarded may be distributed amongst the persons for whose benefit the
\n\tapplication is made are dealt with by S.110-A and S.110-B of the Act
\n\tand to that extent the provisions of the Act do supersede the
\n\tprovisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 in so far as motor
\n\tvehicle accidents are concerned.  These provisions are not merely
\n\tprocedural provisions.  They substantially affect the rights of the
\n\tparties.  As the right of action created by the Fatal Accidents Act,
\n\t1855 was  new in its species, new in its quality, new in its
\n\tprinciples, in every way new  the right given to the legal
\n\trepresentatives under the Act to file an application for
\n\tcompensation for death due to a  motor vehicle accident is equally
\n\tnew and an enlarged one.  This new right cannot be hedged in by all
\n\tthe limitation of an action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
\n\tNew situations and new dangers require new strategies and new
\n\tremedies.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tparagraph 11, the Apex Court further said :\n<\/p>\n
 We
\n\tfeel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance
\n\twith the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having
\n\tregard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal
\n\trepresentative who suffers on account of the death of a person due
\n\tto a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of
\n\tcompensation and that is provided by S.110-A to 110-F of the Act.
\n\tThese provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of
\n\ttorts that every injury must have a remedy.  It is for the Motor
\n\tVehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which
\n\tappears to it to be just as provided in S.110-B of the Act to
\n\tspecify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid.
\n\tThe determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment
\n\tas required by S.110B of the Act amongst the legal representatives
\n\tfor whose benefit an application may be filed under S.110-A of the
\n\tAct have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law.
\n\t We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and
\n\tbrothers’ children and sometimes foster children live together and
\n\tthey are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the
\n\tbread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there
\n\tis no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the
\n\tprovisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already
\n\theld has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in
\n\tthe Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles
\n\taccidents.  We express our approval on the decision in Megjibhai
\n\tKhimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai (AIR<\/a> 1977 Guj 195) (supra) and
\n\thold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle
\n\taccident is entitled to maintain a petition under S.110-A of the Act
\n\tif he is a legal representative of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\n\tIn the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, brothers’ son is class II heir.
\n\tTherefore, the petition is maintainable, claimants being legal
\n\trepresentatives\/heirs of the deceased within the meaning of Section
\n\t166\/163-A of the Act.  Deceased was bachelor and left no other
\n\their\/representative in class I to represent him in his estate,
\n\texcept the claimants, according to learned counsel for the
\n\tclaimants.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the observations  made by Division Bench of this Court as
\n\treferred above, the contention raised by learned Advocate Ms. Megha
\n\tJani cannot be accepted.  Therefore, Claims Tribunal, Godhra has
\n\trightly examined and rightly decided the matter.  Hence, Claims
\n\tTribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by
\n\tthis Court.  The amount of compensation is also properly worked out
\n\twhich cannot be considered to be on higher side and in my opinion, a
\n\treasonable, just and proper compensation has been awarded.  No
\n\tinterference is required by this Court.  Therefore, there is no
\n\tsubstance in First Appeal.  Accordingly First Appeal is dismissed.
\n\tToday First Appeal No.254\/2010 is dismissed.  Therefore, no order is
\n\trequired to be passed in Civil Application.  Accordingly, Civil
\n\tApplication No.1545\/2009 is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
(H.K.\n<\/p>\n
Rathod, J.)<\/p>\n
Caroline<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court National vs Pritamsinh on 11 February, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/254\/2010 12\/ 14 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 254 of 2010 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1545 of 2009 ========================================================= NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant(s) Versus PRITAMSINH NATWARSINH CHAUHAN […]<\/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-94519","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNational vs Pritamsinh 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-pritamsinh-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 Pritamsinh 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-pritamsinh-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=\"2018-06-29T20:47:31+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=\"17 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-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National vs Pritamsinh on 11 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T20:47:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3426,\"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-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010\",\"name\":\"National vs Pritamsinh 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\":\"2018-06-29T20:47:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-vs-pritamsinh-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 Pritamsinh 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 Pritamsinh 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-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National vs Pritamsinh on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-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":"2018-06-29T20:47:31+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National vs Pritamsinh on 11 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T20:47:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010"},"wordCount":3426,"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-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010","name":"National vs Pritamsinh 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":"2018-06-29T20:47:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-on-11-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-vs-pritamsinh-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 Pritamsinh 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\/94519","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=94519"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94519\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94519"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94519"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94519"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}