RATNIBEN WD/O NAVINBHAI SAVLABHAIversusHIMMATBHAI LALABHAI GOHIL

      C/FA/3890/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3890 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

             Approved for Reporting                Yes           No

==========================================================
                RATNIBEN WD/O NAVINBHAI SAVLABHAI & ORS.
                                 Versus
                    HIMMATBHAI LALABHAI GOHIL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 27/01/2026

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1.      Admit. Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned counsel waives service of notice of
admission for respondent No.3.

2.      With consent of learned counsel for both the sides and considering
the issue involved in this appeal, which is narrow in compass, present rst
appeal is taken for nal disposal forthwith.

3.      Feeling aggrieved by and dissatis ed with the judgment and award
dated 30.11.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux),
Dahod at Limkheda, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1810/2017, the appellants –original
claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).




                                   Page 1 of 5
       C/FA/3890/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




4.       Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants –
original Claimants and Mr. Chirayu A. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent
No.3. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2 and respondent
No.1 is reported as expired.

5.       It is the case of the claimants that on 11.11.2015, deceased Navinbhai
Mavi was standing on the side of the road near the motorcycle, at that time,
one vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-20-V-5809 came with full speed and
in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the deceased standing there.
As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and succumbed to it.
Therefore, the claim petition was led by the legal heirs of the deceased to
get compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating
the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- along with cost and interest @ 8 % p.a.

6.       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 that, the Tribunal has erred in
considering monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- on notional basis
as he was doing labour work and earning Rs.7,000/- p.m. He has also
submitted that, the deceased died left behind 8 dependents and therefore,
compensation under loss of consortium is also required to be enhanced.
Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not properly awarding compensation
under other conventional heads and therefore, conventional heads are
required to be awarded. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed
for.

7.       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 proof and
adequate compensation is awarded under the head of conventional heads.
Therefore, requested to dismiss the appeal.




                                    Page 2 of 5
     C/FA/3890/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




8.     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 claimants have
 led an ABdavit of claimant No.1 at Exh:20, FIR at Exh:21, Panchnama of
scene of incident at Exh:22, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:23 and PM report at
Exh:24. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal
held the oEending vehicle 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 40 years as per the claim petition and PM report which is at
Exh:24 from which it reveals that the deceased was 40 years.

9.     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 2015 and during that time, the deceased was doing labour work and as
per the minimum wages, the minimum income is required to be considered
as Rs.7,440/-. Hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.7,500/-
per month. Further, the Tribunal has considered future prospective income
of the deceased at 25 % which is required to be reassessed to 40 % because
the Tribunal itself has believed that the age of the deceased between the
age group of 36 to 40 years. As the deceased was married and having 8
dependents, 1/5 deduction as personal expenditure and living of the
deceased and multiplier of 15 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] are just and
proper.



                                   Page 3 of 5
      C/FA/3890/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




10.     Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- and
future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,000/- which comes to Rs.10,500/- and 1/5nd
amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the
deceased which comes to Rs.2,100/- and the net amount comes to
Rs.8,400/-. In view of above, the amount under the head of loss of future
dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.8,400/- x 12 months x 15
multiplier = Rs.15,12,000/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.9,72,000/- under the head of future loss of
dependency.

11.     Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi
(supra) has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under 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 and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral
expenses. 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 amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.3,87,200/- as
the deceased was 8 dependents.

12.     As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled to
get compensation computed as under:-
                       Heads        Awarded by the     Reassessed by this Court
                                        Tribunal
      Future loss of dependency        5,40,000/-            Rs.15,12,000/-
      Loss of Estate                    70,000/-             Rs.4,23,500/-
      Funeral expenses                                (Rs.18,150/- under loss of
                                                      estate, Rs,18150/- under
      Loss of consortium
                                                      funeral expenses      and
                                                      Rs.3,87,200/- for loss of
                                                      consortium)
      Total compensation               6,10,000/-             19,35,500/-




                                   Page 4 of 5
        C/FA/3890/2025                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026




  13.       As Rs.6,10,000/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
  appellants – original claimant is entitled to get additional amount of
  Rs.13,25,500/- (Rs.19,35,500 – Rs.6,10,000/-) with proportionate costs and
  interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

  14.       Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated
  30.11.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Dahod
  at Limkheda, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1810/2017 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.13,25,500/- 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.

  15.       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 28/01/2026 14:11:13




                                                    Page 5 of 5