SAMUBEN JAYANTIBHAI VARANIA KOLI WD/O DECD JAYANTIBHAI DHIRUBHAI VARANIA KOLIversusSHANKERBHAI KANABHAI SURELA

     C/FA/2640/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2640 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting                 Yes          No

==========================================================
    SAMUBEN JAYANTIBHAI VARANIA KOLI WD/O DECD JAYANTIBHAI
                   DHIRUBHAI VARANIA KOLI & ORS.
                                Versus
               SHANKERBHAI KANABHAI SURELA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS AMI N BHATT(3372) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 03/02/2026

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1.     Feeling aggrieved by and dissatis>ed with the judgment and award
dated 02.09.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux),
Bhuj, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.330/2005, the appellants –original claimants preferred
present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2.     Heard Mr. Hemal Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants – original
Claimants and Ms. Ami Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Respondent No.1 is reported as expired and though served, none appears
for respondent No.2.




                                   Page 1 of 5
       C/FA/2640/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




3.       It is the case of the claimants that on 20.03.2005, while the deceased
Jayantibhai Dhriubhai Varaniya was going in Tanker bearing No.GJ01-U-4688
as a cleaner from Morbi to Valia and at about 09:45 hours in night, when
they reached near Vatariya village, at that time, driver of the tanker lost his
control over the steering and turned turtle the tanker. As a result, the
deceased got serious injuries and succumbed to it. Therefore, the claim
petition was >led by the legal heir of the deceased to get compensation of
Rs.9,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence
produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.7,15,100/- along with cost and interest @ 9 % p.a.

4.       The appeal is >led on limited ground of quantum and no further issue
qua liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Therefore, learned
counsel for the claimant has mainly argued on two counts, >rst is that, the
Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head of loss of
consortium only to claimant No.1 and also amount under the head is also
not properly awarded. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed
for.

5.       Learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has rightly
awarded compensation in absence of any evidence of income and adequate
compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore,
requested to dismiss the appeal.

6.       Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, it appears that the appeal is >led only on the aspect of quantum and
liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has not >led any cross-
objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of
quantum only. Alleged incident is not not in dispute. Involvement of the
vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant No.5
has given his deposition at Exh:30, FIR at Exh:35, RC Book at Exh:36, PM
report at Exh:39 and Election card of the deceased at Exh:50. After


                                    Page 2 of 5
     C/FA/2640/2022                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held the driver
of the tanker was sole negligent relying on the decisions of the Bimla Devi
Vs. HRTC reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir
Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635. Further, the age of the deceased is
35 years as per the Election card produced at Exh:50.

7.     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 in the
year 2005 and during that time, the deceased was doing cleaner work in the
tanker and as per the minimum wages, the minimum income is required to
be considered as Rs.3,000/- p.m, which is not in dispute. Further, the
Tribunal has not committed any error in considered future prospective
income of the deceased as 40 % which is also not in dispute. As the
deceased was married and having 8 dependents, 1/5th deduction as
personal expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 16 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.

8.     Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- and
future prospect of 40% = Rs.1200/- which comes to Rs.4200/- and 1/5th
amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the
deceased which comes to Rs.840/- and the net amount comes to Rs.3,360/-.
In view of above, the amount under the head of loss of future dependency
is required to be reassessed as Rs.3360/- x 12 months x 16 multiplier =
Rs.6,45,120/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.6,45,120/- under the
head of future loss of dependency and hence, no additional amount under
this head is required to be given.




                                     Page 3 of 5
      C/FA/2640/2022                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




9.      Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi
(supra) has awarded total Rs.30,000/- under the two conventional heads,
however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to be reassessed
as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral
expenses. Therefore, the appellants – original claimants are entitled for
additional amount of Rs.6300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3150/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3150/- towards
funeral expenses).

10.     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 Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s
ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
666, the Tribunal has committed error in awarding loss of consortium to
only applicant No.1. However, in view of above judgments, the appellants
are entitled for loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of
consortium is reassessed as Rs.3,87,200 (Rs.48,400/- x 8 claimants).

11.     As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled to
get compensation computed as under:-
                       Heads                 Awarded by the Reassessed by this
                                                  Tribunal              Court
          Future loss of dependency              6,45,120/-           6,45,120/-
          Loss of Estate                          15,000/-             18,150/-
          Funeral expenses                        15,000/-             18,150/-
          Loss of consortium                      40,000/-            3,87,200/-
          Total compensation                     7,15,120/-          10,68,620/-


12.     As Rs.7,15,120/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
appellants – original claimant is entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.3,53,500/- (Rs.10,68,620 - Rs.7,15,120/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.




                                   Page 4 of 5
      C/FA/2640/2022                                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




13.      Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 02.09.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux),
Bhuj, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.330/2005 stands modi>ed to the
aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. It is
provided that respondent No.3 shall deposit such additional amount of
Rs.3,53,500/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the
Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.


14.      The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the de>cit court fees on
enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. Award
to be drawn accordingly.



                                                                        (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT


  Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
  Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/02/2026 11:25:03




                                                 Page 5 of 5