INDRASINH PATHUBHA JADEJAversusDUSHYANTSINH ANIRUDDHSINH JADEJA

    C/FA/1848/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1848 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting             Yes          No
                                                         √
==========================================================
              INDRASINH PATHUBHA JADEJA & ORS.
                              Versus
          DUSHYANTSINH ANIRUDDHSINH JADEJA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAINAM M SHAH(17596) for the appellants(s) No. 1,2,3
MR MANAN B PANDYA(12491) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 27/01/2026
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

      Though served, none appears for respondent No.1.
      Admit. With the consent of learned advocate appearing for
appellantss and respondent No.2, appeal is taken up for final hearing.

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is filed by the appellants – original
claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
03.04.2025 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at
Gondal (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.26 of 2019, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to award
compensation of Rs.19,46,400/- to the appellants – original claimants.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal is as follows:

[2.1] On the fateful day of accident i.e. on 21.01.2019, the deceased


                                 Page 1 of 7
    C/FA/1848/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




Shivbhadrasinh       Indrasinh   Jadeja    (hereinafter    referred      to     as
“deceased”) was coming from Shishang to Kalavad alongwith his
friend that is original opponent No.1 in Car No.GJ-10-CN-5074 which
was being driven by opponent No.1 in full speed and in rash and
negligent manner and due to excessive speed, as an animal came
across the offending car, the driver of offending car lost control over
the car and car overturned thereby causing accident due to which the
deceased sustained serious injuries and died and therefore, the
appellants herein – original claimants filed MACP No.26/2019 seeking
compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the driver of offending Car solely negligent for
the accident and was pleased to award Rs.19,46,400/- to the original
claimants. However, the appellants – original claimants being
aggrieved with the quantum of compensation have filed the present
First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Jainam Shah appearing for the appellants
– original claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has
committed an error in not considering the income of deceased at
Rs.14,500/- though there was sufÏcient evidence produced on the
record which was sufÏcient to prove that the deceased was holding
degree of Bachelor of Computer Applications and used to earn
Rs.10,000/- per month by selling ocimum soap in Kalavad and salary
slip of the deceased is produced at Exh.41 and deceased was also
doing part time job as a Computer Operator at Novell Data Processing
and used to earn Rs.4500/- per month and therefore, the learned
Tribunal ought to have considered monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.14,500/-. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought



                                  Page 2 of 7
    C/FA/1848/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




to have considered the future prospects at 50% instead of 40% as the
deceased was in permanent job and under the conventional head, 10%
rise per annum is not given. Hence, he has requested to allow the
present appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Manan Pandya appearing for the
respondent No.2 – insurance company has opposed the appeal and
submitted that in absence of any evidence qua income of the
deceased, the learend Tribunal has appropriately considered the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- and as the deceased
was in permanent job, 40% addition towards future prospects is
appropriately made in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He has further submitted that so far as
consortium is concerned, learned Tribunal has considered 10% rise for
considering the compensation under the head of filial consortium and
the learned Tribunal has appropriately held that sister of the deceased
is not entitled to compensation towards consortium and only parents
of the deceased are entitled for the compensation under the head of
filial consortium and hence, impugned judgment and award does not
call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, he has requested to
dismiss the present appeal.

[5.0] In the present appeal, negligence and liability is not challenged
and present appeal only challenges the quantum of compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal and hence, present appeal is
considered in narrow compass to that extent only.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellants – original
claimants and learned advocate for the insurance company and
perusing the record, it appears that in order to prove the income of

                               Page 3 of 7
    C/FA/1848/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




the deceased, the appellants – original claimants have produced the
afÏdavit of appellant No.1 at Exh.38 as well as afÏdavit of one
Chetansinh Pratapsinh Zala at Exh.40 from which it transpire that the
deceased was aged 24 years and doing job of retail selling of ocimum
soap and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and salary slip of the
deceased is produced at Exh.41. The witness namely Chetansinh Zala
(Exh.40) has stated in his afÏdavit that the deceased was working in
his firm as Computer Manager as the deceased was holding degree of
Bachelor of Computer Applications and that he was paying monthly
salary of Rs.10,000/- to the deceased. The said evidence is duly proved
and agreed as considered and accepted however, so far as another
income of Rs.4500/- from part time job is concerned, no evidence is
produced on record to show that the deceased was doing part time
job in Novell Data Processing Centre and used to earn Rs.4500/- per
month. In absence of any evidence in that regard, learned Tribunal has
not considered the oral version. Even, to prove the said facts, no any
witness or no any documentary evidence is produced on record.
However, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact
that the deceased was serving in the firm of Chetansinh Zala as
Computer Manager and also serving as a computer operator in Novell
Data Processing Centre and was also helping his father in agricultural
activity and hence, considered monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.12,000/-. This Court is of considered view that once the Tribunal has
accepted that the deceased was doing part time job in Novell Data
Processing Centre, there was no reason to refuse to accept the said
version or income qua part time job. The learned Tribunal has also
accepted the fact that the deceased was helping his father in
agricultural activity and there is no direct effect or loss in agricultural
income of the father of the deceased due to demise of the deceased
hwoever, once evidence qua part time job is accepted, considering the

                                 Page 4 of 7
    C/FA/1848/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




educational qualification and background of the deceased, this Court
is of considered view that the monthly income of the deceased ought
to have been considered at Rs.14,500/- and to that extent the learned
Tribunal has committed an error. The deceased at the time of accident
was aged 24 years and therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Rs.5800/- (40% of
Rs.14,500/-) towards future prospect is required to be added which
would comes to Rs.20,300/-.

[6.1] As the deceased at the time of accident was admittedly aged
about 24 years and unmarried, 1/2 (Rs.10,150/-) is required to be
deducted towards dependency and personal expenses and therefore,
monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.10,150/- and yearly
loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,21,800/-. Further, as the
deceased was aged 24 years, in view of decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier
of 18 would apply as rightly applied by the learned Tribunal. Applying
the multiplier of 18, future loss of dependency would come to
Rs.21,92,400/- (Rs.1,21,800 x 18).

[6.2] Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
Pranay Sethi (Supra) has awarded Rs.18,000/- each under the two
conventional heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses which does
not call for any interference.

[6.3] Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Jana Bai Wd/o Dinkarrao



                                 Page 5 of 7
   C/FA/1848/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




Ghorpade & Ors. vs. M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd.
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned Tribunal has observed
that the sister of the deceased is not entitled to compensation under
the head of loss of consortium (filial consortium) and therefore, the
appellants are entitled to Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) towards loss of
consortium.

[7.0] Thus, now the original claimants are entitled to the
compensation as under:

                Heads            Amount       Reassessed by this Court
                               awarded by
                               the Tribunal
     Future loss of            Rs.18,14,400/-      Rs.21,92,400/-
     dependency                                 including additional
                                              amount of Rs.3,78,000/-
     Loss of Estate               Rs.18,000/-        Rs.18,000/-
                                                         NIL
     Funeral Expenses             Rs.18,000/-        Rs.18,000/-
                                                         NIL
     Loss of Consortium           Rs.96,000/-        Rs.96,800/-
                                                     (Rs.48,400 x 2)
                        Total... Rs.19,46,400/-       Rs.23,25,200/-
                                                  including additional
                                                amount of Rs.3,78,800/-

      Thus, total compensation of Rs.19,46,400/- as awarded by the
learned Tribunal is on lower side, for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, and therefore, same is required to be reassessed at
Rs.23,25,200/- and hence, the appellants – original claimants are
entitled to get additional (enhanced) amount of Rs.3,78,200/-
(Rs.23,25,200 – Rs.19,46,400) towards compensation.

[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal is partly



                                 Page 6 of 7
     C/FA/1848/2025                                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 03.04.2025 by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at Gondal in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.26 of 2019 is modified and respondent
No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit reassessed amount of
compensation of Rs.23,25,200/- alongwith accrued interest at the rate
of 9% per annum, with the learned Tribunal within a period of FOUR
WEEKS from the date of receipt of the present judgment. Rest of the
impugned judgment and award remains unaltered.

[8.1] After the aforesaid amount of reassessed compensation is
deposited by the insurance company, learned Tribunal is directed to
disburse the entire amount as per the apportionment made by the
learned Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the original
claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper
verification and after following due procedure.

[9.0]             While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid.

[10.0]            Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

         Pending civil application, if any, also stands disposed of.



                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                        (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
   Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
   Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 28/01/2026 10:26:02




                                                   Page 7 of 7