BIRJU MOHANBHAI MAKWANAversusHEIRS OF DECEASED RANJANBEN JAYENDRABHAI GAMAR ARJUNBHAI JAYENDRABHAI GAMAR

     C/FA/4278/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4278 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR                    Sd/-
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting               Yes          No
                                                             ✔
==========================================================
                BIRJU MOHANBHAI MAKWANA & ANR.
                             Versus
       HEIRS OF DECEASED RANJANBEN JAYENDRABHAI GAMAR
              ARJUNBHAI JAYENDRABHAI GAMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR ANKITKUMAR B PATEL(9939) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 12/01/2026
                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.     Admit. Learned advocates waive service of notice of
admission for the respective parties. Since notice was already
issued by this Court on 02.12.2025 and has been duly served
upon the respective respondents, and the learned advocates for
the parties are present before this Court and have requested that
the appeal be taken up for final hearing at the admission stage,
the matter is taken up for final hearing today.


2.     This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 18.01.2025
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Rajkot in


                                  Page 1 of 6
     C/FA/4278/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2026




Motor Accident Claim Petition No.993 of 2016.


3.     Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.


4.     The brief facts of the case are that on 15.08.2015, the
deceased Jyotsnaben Mohanbhai Makwana and the deceased
Gelabhai @ Ghelabhai Vashrambhai Gamara, along with the
claimants of MACP No. 890 of 2016 and MACP No. 76 of 2017
and others, were travelling in Motor Car No. GJ-3-ER-5316.
When they reached near the place of the accident, a cow
suddenly came onto the road and, while trying to avoid it, Motor
Car No. GJ-3-ER-5316 collided with another Motor Car No. GJ-
1-KD-6171. As a result of the accident, the deceased Jyotsnaben
Mohanbhai Makwana and Gelabhai @ Ghelabhai Vashrambhai
Gamara sustained grievous injuries and succumbed thereto,
whereas the claimants of MACP No. 890 of 2016 and MACP No.
76 of 2017 suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent
disability.


4.   The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering
the evidence produced on record. It is contended that the
learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the
income of the deceased on a notional basis. The learned Tribunal
ought to have considered at least minimum wages which was
prevailing in the year 2015. It is submitted that the learned
Tribunal has not awarded the proper compensation. Hence, the
learned advocate for the appellant has prayed that the present
appeal be allowed.


                                Page 2 of 6
     C/FA/4278/2025                        JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2026




5.   On the other hand, the learned advocates appearing for the
respondents have strongly opposed the appeal and submitted
that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper
compensation in view of the evidence available on record.
Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award passed
by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after
taking into consideration the entire material on record and
hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court
and the present appeal may be dismissed.


6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the record, it is an undisputed and
admitted fact that the accident occurred in the year 2015. The
evidence led before the Tribunal includes the deposition of
witness Birju Mohanbhai Makwana at Exhibit-40, the charge-
sheet at Exhibit-52, the insurance policy at Exhibit-55, the
driving licence of the driver of the motor car at Exhibit-53, the
injury certificate at Exhibit-58 and the post-mortem report at
Exhibit-60.


7. It appears that the learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence
in the light of the decisions in Bimla Devi v. HRTC, AIR 2009
SC 2819 and Parmeshwaridevi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11
SCC 635. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of Ertiga Car No.
GJ-3-ER-5316 was solely negligent in causing the accident and
that there was no negligence on the part of Indigo Car No. GJ-1-


                             Page 3 of 6
      C/FA/4278/2025                        JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2026




KD-6171. The finding on liability has not been challenged.


8.      So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
although the accident occurred in the year 2015, the learned
Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.3,000/-. It is pertinent to note that, considering the prevailing
minimum wages for the year 2015, the income ought to have
been taken at Rs.6,968/-, rounded off to Rs.7,000/- for the
purpose of awarding just and proper compensation. The learned
Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income. Further,
as the deceased was aged 54 years, the learned Tribunal added
25% towards future prospects and upto that extent committed
an error, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
68, only 10% is required to be added towards future prospects.

9.      Therefore, by adding 10% (Rs.700/-), the total monthly
income would come to Rs.7,700/-. As the claimants are two in
number, in view of the settled principles laid down in Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121,
one-third of the income, i.e. Rs.2,566/-, is required to be
deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the monthly
loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,134/- (Rs.7,700 – Rs.2,566).


10.     Considering that the deceased was 54 years old at the time
of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is “11” as
per Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, the total loss of dependency
would come to Rs.6,77,688/- (Rs.5,134 × 12 × 11).




                              Page 4 of 6
      C/FA/4278/2025                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2026




11.     As regards the conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is required to be
enhanced to Rs.96,400/- (Rs.48,200 × 2), as the claimants are
two in number. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss
of estate, which is required to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/-, and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is also required to
be enhanced to Rs.18,150/-.


12.     Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.18,150/-
towards loss of estate, Rs.96,400/- towards loss of consortium,
and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral and transportation expenses.


13.     Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,77,688/-
towards        loss     of   future   income.        Upon     recalculating           the
compensation under the conventional heads, the amount is as
under:


     Sr. No.            Nature of heads                        Amount
 1              Future loss of income               Rs.6,77,688/-

 2              Loss of Consortium                  Rs.48,200x2= Rs.96,400/-

 3              Loss of estate                      Rs.18,150/-
 5              Funeral expenses                    Rs.18,150/-
                Total                               Rs.8,10,388/-




14. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.3,70,388/- (Rs.8,10,388 – Rs.4,40,000/-)
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
the claim petition till realization.


                                      Page 5 of 6
         C/FA/4278/2025                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2026




   15.     For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is
   allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the
   learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.8,10,388/-
   from Rs.4,40,000/-. Respondent – Insurance Company shall
   deposit the said additional amount of Rs.3,70,388/- along with
   interest at the rate of 9% per annum, 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.


   16.      The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the
   deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse
   the amount accordingly.


   17.      Award to be drawn accordingly.

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                      (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
   ALI



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/01/2026 16:25:16




                                                 Page 6 of 6