High Court of Gujarat
MAHENDRASINH LAZMANSINH CHAUHANversusYOGESHBHAI SOMNATHBHAI AHIRE
- Disposal
- RULE ISSUED AND PARTLY ALLOWED
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
Compensation for a child victim under the Motor Vehicles Act must be based on the applicable minimum wages, a multiplier of 18, a 40% addition for future prospects, and appropriate deductions, leading to a higher award than that granted by the Tribunal.
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 dated 17‑03‑2022, which had granted modest compensation for the death of a 14‑year‑old child in a road accident on 23‑10‑2012. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred by assessing the deceased’s notional income at Rs 15,000 per annum, using an incorrect multiplier of 15, and omitting a 40% addition for future prospects and appropriate deductions. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that compensation for a child must be calculated on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the State (Rs 5,020 per month), with a multiplier of 18 and a 40% future‑prospects addition, and that a half‑deduction for personal expenses is applicable. Accordingly, the Court recalculated loss of dependency to Rs 7,59,024 and revised the conventional heads, increasing the total compensation by Rs 5,49,124. The appeal was partly allowed, the Tribunal’s award was modified, and the insurer was directed to pay the additional amount with interest within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased child.
- Whether the appropriate multiplier for loss of dependency should be 15 or 18.
- Whether a 40% addition for future prospects should be awarded.
- Whether deductions for personal and living expenses should be applied.
- Whether the conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium) were correctly quantified.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident Claims TribunalCompensationLoss of DependencyMinimum WagesMultiplierFuture ProspectsSection 173Motor Vehicles Act
Judgment
C/FA/3468/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3468 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
MAHENDRASINH LAZMANSINH CHAUHAN & ANR.
Versus
YOGESHBHAI SOMNATHBHAI AHIRE & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR.KRUTIK A PARIKH(7268) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 20/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and award
dated 17.03.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Mahisagar at Lunawada (which shall hereinafter
be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.2125 of 2017, 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 7
C/FA/3468/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, for the appellants –
original Claimants and Mr. K. A. Parikh, learned Advocate for
respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the original record
and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 23.10.2012 the deceased
Karansinh Mahendrasinh Chauhan (who shall hereinafter be
referred to as “deceased”) died in a vehicular accident by
Indica Car bearing Reg. No.GJ-05-JA-2606 at near Village Signali
on Godhra to Lunawada Highway Road. The offence was
registered with Kothamba Police Station diary No.18/2012.
Therefore, the appellants have filed MAC Petition seeking
compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating
the evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim
petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the
learned Tribunal has committed error by assessing notional
income of the deceased. He has further submitted that the
learned Tribunal also erred in not awarding addition towards
future prospectus and awarded meagre compensation. He has
further submitted that inadequate amount is awarded under
conventional heads. Hence, he has requested to allow the
present appeal.
Page 2 of 7
C/FA/3468/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal on the ground that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper
and no interference is required to call for. Hence, he has
requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal
has committed error in assessing quantum by not considering
the income of the deceased who was 14 years old at the time of
accident and considered only Rs.15,000/- per annum on notional
basis. However, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in
(2020) 4 SCC 413 and Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor
Ahmed Simon and Anr, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3692, and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibhai
Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation – 2025 INSC 1070, as per
which the Hon’ble Supreme Court come to the conclusion and
clarified that when the Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is
concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury
or passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has
to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled
worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time.
Considering the aforesaid fact in the case on hand the learned
Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased
Page 3 of 7
C/FA/3468/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
child at Rs.15,000/- per annum and the Insurance Company is
also failed to perform obligation and responsibility as party to
point out applicable minimum wages endorsed by the
Government. In view of above at the relevant point of time the
rate as per minimum wages was Rs.5,020/-, hence, the income
of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.5,020/- per month.
Further, the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not
considering addition towards future prospectus, however, this
Court is of the considered view that 40% addition towards future
prospectus is required to be considered to award just
compensation. Similarly, the learned Tribunal also erred in not
considering any deduction, however, as the deceased was
unmarried ½ deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased is considered. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has
also committed error in considering the multiplier of 15, which is
required to be considered as multiplier of 18 to award just and
proper compensation in light of judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] and National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017
ACJ 2700.
7) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as
Rs.5,020/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.2,008/- which
Page 4 of 7
C/FA/3468/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
comes to to Rs.7,028/- and ½ amount is required to be
deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased
which comes to Rs.3,514/- and the net amount comes to
Rs.3,514/-. In view of above the amount towards loss of
dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.3,514/- x 12 x 18
= Rs.7,59,024/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.5,34,024/- towards loss of
dependency.
8) Further, the learned Tribunal while relying on the judgment of
Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.1,18,000/- 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 and
Rs.48,400/- each to the appellants towards loss of consortium.
Therefore, the amount under the three conventional heads is
reassessed as Rs.1,33,100/-. Therefore, the appellant is are
entitled for additional amount of Rs.15,100/- towards three
conventional heads.
9) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get
compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of dependency Rs.2,25,000/- Rs.7,59,024/-
including additional
amount of Rs.5,34,024/-
Page 5 of 7
C/FA/3468/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium 88,000/- Rs.96,800/-
(Rs.44,000/- x 2) including additional
amount of Rs.8,800/-
Total compensation Rs.3,43,000/- Rs.8,92,124/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.5,49,124/-
10) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.3,43,000/-, however, as discussed above
the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.5,49,124/- with proportionate costs and interest as
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and
award dated 17.03.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mahisagar at Lunawada, in MAC Petition
No.2125 of 2017 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of
the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent
No.3 – Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount
of Rs.5,49,124/- 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
Page 6 of 7
C/FA/3468/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
12) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
13) 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 20/02/2026 18:00:11
Page 7 of 7
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