High Court of Gujarat
LATABEN WD/O JIGARBHAI DAMORversusRASULBHAI VARIYABHAI MAVI
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed; the Tribunal’s award is modified to increase the compensation by Rs 6,85,956, with revised calculations for loss of dependency, estate, funeral expenses, and consortium, and the deduction for personal expenses reduced to one‑quarter.
Summary
The appellants filed a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod dated 03‑10‑2024 in a claim arising from the death of Jigarbhai Manglabhai Damor in a road accident on 07‑11‑2016. The High Court examined the quantum of compensation, holding that the Tribunal erred by using an outdated monthly wage, by deducting one‑third of the deceased’s income for personal expenses despite the death of his father during the pendency of the suit, and by mis‑calculating loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (minimum wages), Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp. (future income and multiplier), and Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram (loss of consortium), the Court recomputed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 7,700, applied a ¼ deduction for personal expenses, and increased the awards for loss of dependency, estate, funeral and consortium. Consequently, the total compensation was raised from Rs 10,05,360 to Rs 16,91,316, resulting in an additional amount of Rs 6,85,956 to be paid by the insurer with interest. The appeal was partly allowed and the Tribunal’s award was modified accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal should have used the prevailing minimum wage for assessing the deceased’s monthly income.
- Whether the deduction for personal and living expenses should be one‑third or one‑quarter given the death of the deceased’s father pendente lite.
- Whether the quantum of loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium was correctly calculated.
- Whether the contributory negligence deduction of 10% was properly applied.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident Claims TribunalCompensationLoss of DependencyLoss of ConsortiumMinimum WageContributory NegligenceMotor Vehicles Act
Judgment
C/FA/2611/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2611 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
LATABEN WD/O JIGARBHAI DAMOR & ORS.
Versus
RASULBHAI VARIYABHAI MAVI & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 29/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 03.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Dahod (which shall hereinafter be referred to as
"the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.299 of 2016, the appellants – original claimants have
preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as
"the Act" for short).
Page 1 of 8
C/FA/2611/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for
the appellants – original Claimants. The respondents were duly
served with the notice but did not appear. Perused the original
record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 07.11.2016, the deceased
Jigarbhai Manglabhai Damor (who shall hereinafter be referred
to as “deceased”) was returning to Nanikharaj on motorcycle
after dropping his nephew Bharatbhai at Abhlod. At that time,
the opponent no.1 came by driving Tractor bearing Reg. No.GJ-
20-B4132, in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the
motorcycle whereby Jigarbhai fell down and sustained serious
injuries and died. A complaint came to be registered being I-CR
No.64/2016 with Jesavada Police Station. Therefore, the
appellants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation,
wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence
produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal
has not considered minimum wages of prevalent time and erred
in deducting 1/3 for personal expenses of the deceased and also
not considered consortium to each appellants.
5) Having heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and going
through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has
Page 2 of 8
C/FA/2611/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026
considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in
the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC
2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in
2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on
preponderance of probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered
the affidavit at Exhibit 17, wherein, all the facts of the accident
have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the
claim petition. The complaint is produced at Exhibit 22,
panchnama at Exhibit 23, inquest panchnama at Exhibit 24 and
charge-sheet at Exhibit 21. The involvement of the vehicle, issue
of negligence to the extent to 90% on the part of driver of
Tractor and 10% self negligence of the deceased and liability to
pay compensation are not in dispute in the present appeal and
as such challenge is given for quantum and consortium, hence,
the appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass. As per
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in
2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on
the record then Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum
wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the
deceased. In the present case the accident occurred on
07.11.2016 and during that time the deceased was working on
Lathe Machine and as per the Government approved minimum
wages the rate was Rs.7,717/-, whereas, the Tribunal has
Page 3 of 8
C/FA/2611/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026
assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month
which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the
deceased is reassessed as Rs.7,700/- per month. Further, as
the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident on the
basis of which the learned Tribunal has considered future
prospective income as 40% and multiplier of 17 were considered
by the learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which are just and
proper.
6) After the accident the deceased left behind four dependents but
during the pendency of the petition before the learned Tribunal
the father of the deceased was died and his name was deleted
vide order below Exhibit 15, and the learned Tribunal has
committed error in considering 1/3 deduction and failed to
consider that the father of the deceased was died pendente lite
before passing of the award by the Tribunal and hence keeping
in mind the benevolent object of the Act, this Court is of the
opinion that four dependents were at the time of accident hence
four dependents are required to considered for deduction and
therefore ¼ deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased is considered.
Page 4 of 8
C/FA/2611/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026
7) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as
Rs.7,700/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,080/- which
comes to Rs.10,780/- and 1/4 amount is required to be
deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased
which comes to Rs.2,695/- and the net amount comes to
Rs.8,085/-. In view of above the amount under the head of
loss of dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.8,085/- x
12 x 17 = Rs.16,49,340/-. Therefore, the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.6,97,270/- towards loss
of dependency.
8) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, has awarded total Rs.1,65,000/-
under the three conventional heads, however, this Court is of
the view that amount is required to be reassessed as
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral
expenses. Therefore, the appellants – original claimants are
entitled for additional amount of Rs.3,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- -
Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1,650/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1,650/- towards funeral
expenses).
9) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu
Page 5 of 8
C/FA/2611/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026
Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o
Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
666, the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding
Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellant nos.1, 2
and 4, however, in view of above judgments the appellants
being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for Rs.48,400/-
each towards the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the
amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as
Rs.1,93,600/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 4). Therefore, the appellants
are entitled for additional amount of Rs.61,600/- towards loss
of consortium.
10) As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are
entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of dependency Rs.9,52,070/- Rs.16,49,340/-
including additional
amount of Rs.6,97,270/-
Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,650/-
Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,650/-
Loss of consortium Rs.1,32,000/- Rs.1,93,600/-
(Rs.44,000/- X 3) including additional
amount of Rs.61,600/-
Page 6 of 8
C/FA/2611/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026
(Rs.48,400/- X 4)
Total compensation Rs.11,17,070/- Rs.18,79,240/-
Deduction of amount Rs.1,11,807/- Rs.1,87,924/-
for contributory
negligence of the
deceased to the
extent of 10%
Actual amount of Rs.10,05,363/- Rs.16,91,316/-
compensation Rounded to including total additional
Rs.10,05,360/- amount of Rs.6,85,953/-
Additional amount Rs.6,85,956/-
(Rs.16,91,316/- - Rs.10,05,360/-)
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.10,05,360/-, however, as discussed above
the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.6,85,956/- (Rs.16,91,316/- - Rs.10,05,360/-) with
proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and
award dated 03.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod, in MAC Petition No.299 of 2016
stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment
and award remains unaltered. The respondent no.3 - Insurance
Company shall deposit the said additional amount of
Rs.6,85,956/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal,
before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date
Page 7 of 8
C/FA/2611/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026
of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted
back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
13) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
14) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/01/2026 13:19:37
Page 8 of 8
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Accident Claims Tribunal"Sign in to search