RAVJIBHAI RUPSINH THAKOR DELETED AS EXPIREDversusUSMANBHAI ABDULBHAI VORA

    C/FA/2290/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2290 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes       No
                                                       √
==========================================================
      RAVJIBHAI RUPSINH THAKOR DELETED AS EXPIRED & ORS.
                               Versus
               USMANBHAI ABDULBHAI VORA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIREN M MODI(3732) for the appellants(s) No. 1,2,3
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,5
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 27/01/2026
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is >led by the appellants – original
claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
10.10.2017 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at
Bharuch (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.620 of 2011, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased
to award compensation of Rs.7,65,000/- to the appellants – original
claimants.

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

[2.1] On the fateful day of accident i.e. on 03.07.2011, the
deceased Nileshbhai Ravjibhai Thakor (hereinafter referred to as
“deceased”) was riding on the Motorcycle bearing registration


                                 Page 1 of 7
   C/FA/2290/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




No.GJ-5-DJ-4691 as a pillion rider and on reaching the place of
accident, Truck No.GJ-6-W-9089 came in full speed and in rash and
negligent manner and hit the motorcycle on which the deceased
was riding as a pillion rider and due to the impact deceased fell
from the motorcycle and his head was crushed under the front
wheel of the truck as a result of which the deceased died. In this
regard, FIR being I-CR No.28/2011 came to be registered with Amod
Police Station and therefore, the appellants herein – original
claimants >led MACP No.620/2011 seeking compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/-.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the driver of oLending Truck solely negligent
for the accident and was pleased to award Rs.7,65,000/- to the
original claimants. However, being aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation, the appellants herein – original claimants have >led
the present First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

[3.0] Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appearing for the
appellants – original claimants has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.3000/- per month though the deceased was doing
supervisory work and in this regard even evidence was produced
before the learned Tribunal however, the learned Tribunal has
ignored the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.11,000/-. He has
further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error
in not considering the future prospective income of the deceased
and learned Tribunal has also committed an error in considering



                             Page 2 of 7
   C/FA/2290/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




multiplier of 15 though the deceased was in the age group of 26 to
30. He has further submitted that the learned has committed an
error by not allocating any amount towards >lial consortium.
Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia appearing for the
respondent No.3 – insurance company has opposed the present
appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed
any error in absence of any proof of income and even the learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each towards the heads of love
and aLection and loss to estate which covers the global
compensation and therefore, no speci>c head is awarded but
ultimately the total compensation covers and serves the purpose of
the benevolent legislation of the MV Act and hence, no
interference is required. Therefore, he has requested to dismiss the
present appeal.

[6.0] 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.

[7.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellants – original
claimant and learned advocate for the insurance company and
perusing the record, it appears that the claimants have >led
aNdavit of original claimant No.3 (Exh.32) wherein it is stated that
the deceased was serving as a supervisor in the factory namely Kajal
Fabrics and used to earn Rs.11,000/- per month. The learned
Tribunal has taken into consideration the registration of >rm
certi>cate, income tax return of the >rm and audit report of the



                              Page 3 of 7
   C/FA/2290/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




>rm and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the income of
Rs.11,000/- per month of the deceased at the time of accident.
Though the aforesaid evidence is produced on record, learned
Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.3000/- only. It is needless to say that the said averments were
made on oath before the learned Tribunal which remained
unchallenged by the insurance company. Therefore, there was no
justi>cation or any reason for the learned Tribunal to consider
atleast the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2011 as the
accident took place in the year 2011, which was Rs.4580/- though
the learned Tribunal has considered monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.3000/-. But, the evidence produced on record
proves that the deceased was working as a supervisor and to award
just and fair compensation to the claimants, monthly income of the
deceased is required to be assessed at Rs.6000/-. The deceased at
the time of accident was aged 27 years and 9 months 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.2400/- (40% of Rs.6000/-) towards future
prospect is required to be added which would come to Rs.8,400/-.

[7.1] As the deceased at the time of accident was in the age group
of 26 to 30 years, learned Tribunal has committed an error in
considering multiplier of ‘15’ though in paragraph 15 of the
impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has stated that mutliplier
of ‘14’ is to be applied however, 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 ‘17’ would apply. The deceased was bachelor at the



                              Page 4 of 7
    C/FA/2290/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




time of accident and therefore, considering the fact that the
deceased was a bachelor, 1/2 (Rs.4,200/-) is required to be
deducted towards dependency and personal expenses and
therefore, monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,200/-
and yearly loss of dependency would come to Rs.50,400/-. Further,
as discussed above, applying the multiplier of 17, the appellants –
original claimants are entitled to Rs.8,56,800/- (Rs.50,400 x 17).

[7.2] Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and aLection which in the considered
opinion of this Court and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), is erroneous
and is required to be set aside. However, in view of decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra)
appellants are entitled to Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses.

[7.3] Further, the deceased was having two dependents i.e. his
parents and appellant No.3 – original claimant No.3 is elder brother
of deceased who cannot be considered as dependant on the
deceased and therefore, 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 Ghorpade & Ors. vs. M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance
Company Ltd. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned
Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding compensation
under the head of >lial consortium to the appellants – original
claimants however, in view of above judgments the appellants are
entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards the loss of consortium.
Therefore, the amount towards Blial consortium is assessed as


                               Page 5 of 7
    C/FA/2290/2022                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




Rs.96,800/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 2).

[8.0] 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.5,40,000/-              Rs.8,56,800/-
     dependency                          including additional amount of
                                                  Rs.3,16,880/-
     Love and              Rs.1,00,000/-               NIL
     aLection
     Loss of Estate        Rs.1,00,000/-               Rs.18,150/-

     Funeral                Rs.25,000/-                Rs.18,150/-
     Expenses
     Loss            of      NIL                       Rs.96,800/-
     Consortium                                      (Rs48,400 x 2)

                Total...   Rs.7,65,000/-              Rs.9,89,900/-




      Thus, total compensation of Rs.7,65,000/- as awarded by the
learned Tribunal is on lower side, for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, and therefore, same is reassessed at Rs.9,89,900/-
and compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by
Rs.2,24,900/- (Rs.9,89,900 – Rs.7,65,000) therefore, the impugned
judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modi>ed to
the aforesaid extent.

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



                                   Page 6 of 7
       C/FA/2290/2022                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated
10.10.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxi.), at Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.620 of 2011
is modi>ed and respondent No.3 – Insurance Company is directed
to deposit reassessed amount of compensation of Rs.9,89,900/-
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.

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

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

[11.0]             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 10:24:19




                                                   Page 7 of 7