DIPTIBEN RAJENDRABHAI BHATT (LHS-LRS OF LATE RAJENDRABHAI AMRUTBHAI BHATT)versusKISHORBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL

     C/FA/4442/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4442 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

            Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

==========================================================
 DIPTIBEN RAJENDRABHAI BHATT (LHS-LRS OF LATE RAJENDRABHAI
                  AMRUTBHAI BHATT) & ORS.
                           Versus
             KISHORBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR. MOULESH A VYAS(17275) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
Ms. DIXA U PANDYA(9412) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 30/01/2026
                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.     This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–claimant
against the judgment and award dated 08.09.2025 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.149 of 2019.


2.     Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.


3.     The brief facts of the present case are that On 22.11.2018,
Rajendrabhai Amrutbhai Bhatt (hereinafter referred to as “the
deceased”) was travelling in a motorcar bearing Registration No.
GJ-06-HL-8333, driven by opponent No.1. While proceeding on
Petlad–Khambhat Road near the outskirts of village Jogan at


                                  Page 1 of 8
     C/FA/4442/2025                        JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




about 01:00 hours, the said motorcar, being driven at an
excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
from behind into a camel-cart loaded with eucalyptus wood. As a
result, the deceased, the driver of the motorcar, and another
occupant travelling in the rear seat sustained serious injuries.
The deceased was immediately shifted to Shree Krushna
Hospital, Karamsad, where he was declared dead. The incident
was reported to Petlad Town Police Station and was registered as
I-C.R. No.37 of 2018 against the driver of the motorcar.


4.   The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not properly
considering the evidence produced on record. Learned advocate
submitted that the impugned judgment and award is illegal,
unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the evidence on record as
well as settled principles of law. It was urged that the learned
Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.4,42,480/- against the claim
of Rs.24,69,555/-. It was further submitted that the learned
Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.2,83,644/- per annum, despite Income-tax Returns produced
at Exhibits 32, 33 and 34 showing an income of Rs.4,49,301/-
per annum from construction work and consultancy, which
ought to have been accepted. It was contended that the learned
Tribunal erred in ignoring income from other sources reflected in
the Income-tax Returns and in granting only 10% towards future
prospects, which is contrary to settled law. Learned advocate
further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding
only Rs.1,45,200/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.36,300/-
towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, and in applying a


                             Page 2 of 8
     C/FA/4442/2025                         JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




multiplier of 11. It was lastly submitted that the learned
Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% only.
Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the deceased
was aged 52 years at the time of the accident and was engaged
in the business of construction and consultancy. The learned
advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod,
reported in AIR 2023 SC 44, and Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. UP
State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2018 SC 819, and
submitted that all monetary benefits received by the deceased
are required to be taken into consideration while computing
compensation. It was therefore urged that the present appeal
deserves to be allowed.


5.     On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for
respondent No.2 has 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. It was
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
while assessing the average income of the deceased in the
absence of cogent evidence. It was further submitted that the
learned Tribunal rightly relied upon the testimony of the widow,
wherein she admitted that certain income from other sources
continued to accrue even after the demise of the deceased. It was
also contended that the Income-tax Returns were filed on the
basis of presumptive income under Section 44AD of the Income-
tax Act and that only photocopies were produced, wherein the
net profit was not clearly reflected. It was submitted that for the
purpose of awarding compensation, only the net income is



                             Page 3 of 8
   C/FA/4442/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




required to be taken into consideration and, therefore, the
learned Tribunal committed no error in assessing the average
income. It was further submitted that, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, the learned Tribunal had also correctly added future
prospects. Therefore, it was urged that this Court may not
interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It was
further submitted that the impugned judgment and award has
been passed after considering the entire material on record and,
hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court
and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.



6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the appeal has
been filed only on the ground of quantum, as the issues of
involvement, coverage and liability are not in dispute; therefore,
the appeal is required to be decided within a narrow compass.


7. In order to substantiate the claim, claimant No.1 filed an
affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief at Exhibit 34. To prove
the income of the deceased, the PAN card was produced at
Exhibit 29, the Diploma Certificate in Civil Engineering at
Exhibit 31, and photocopies of the Income-tax Returns for the
assessment          years   2016–17,   2017–18    and     2018–19        were
produced at Exhibits 32 to 34. It further appears from the record
that the deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of the
accident. The School Leaving Certificate produced at Exhibit 28
reflects his date of birth as 24.06.1963, whereas the accident

                                  Page 4 of 8
      C/FA/4442/2025                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




occurred on 12.11.2018. On the date of the accident, the
deceased was aged about 55 years and 4 months; therefore, a
multiplier of 11 is required to be applied. The learned Tribunal
has also applied the same multiplier in view of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, which does not call
for any interference.


8. As per the pleadings, the claimants contended that the
deceased had completed a Diploma course in Civil Engineering
and was engaged in the business of construction, earning about
Rs.5 lakh per annum. In support thereof, Income-tax Returns for
the assessment years 2016–17, 2017–18 and 2018–19 were
produced at Exhibits 32 to 34. The learned advocate for the
appellants argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered
the income for the assessment year 2018–19 at Rs.4,49,301/-.


9.      It is, however, undisputed that all the Income-tax Returns
were filed under Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, which
provides for a presumptive taxation scheme, and that no detailed
computation            of   actual   net   profit    was    disclosed.     In   this
background, the learned Tribunal considered the average income
in light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
Bhavnaben               Shaileshbhai           Rank        v.    Mahmadkhan
Mahmadjalaludin Pathan (First Appeal No.3508 of 2021) and
assessed the income at Rs.2,83,644/- per annum.


10.     It is true that Income-tax Returns are statutory documents



                                       Page 5 of 8
      C/FA/4442/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




and deserve due consideration, as held in Anjali (supra), Vijay
Kumar Rastogi (supra) and Malviji v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., 2020 SCJ 526. Upon perusal of the record, however, it
appears that the returns were filed on a presumptive basis and,
in cross-examination, the witness admitted that for the year
2018–19 the presumptive income was Rs.3,75,500/- and that no
invoices or corroborative documentary evidence were produced.
From Exhibit 34, it further emerges that in the profit and loss
account a loss of Rs.1,25,449/- was shown, while the net profit
for the year was disclosed as Rs.3,75,500/-. Though the returns
were filed prior to the accident and show consistency, the Court
is required to make a fair assessment considering the nature of
business, educational qualification and social status of the
deceased, as also held in Nidhi Bhargav v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 872 and Sayar v. Ram Karan,
SLP (Civil) No.24501 of 2025.



11.     In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered
opinion that, for the purpose of awarding just compensation, the
annual income of the deceased is required to be assessed at
Rs.3,75,500/-          on   the   basis    of    presumptive      net     profit.
Accordingly, the contention of the appellants to take the income
at Rs.4,49,301/- is not accepted.



12.     So far as future prospects are concerned, as the deceased
was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident, an addition
of 10% is required to be made in view of the principles laid down
in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the annual income would


                                   Page 6 of 8
      C/FA/4442/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




come to Rs.4,13,050/- (Rs.3,75,500 + Rs.37,550).



13.     Considering that the deceased had three dependents,
deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is appropriate,
and      the      resultant      annual   dependency         would     come        to
Rs.2,75,367/-, which appears to be just and proper. Applying
the multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency would come to
Rs.30,29,037/- (Rs.2,75,367 × 11).



14. Under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.18,150/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.1,45,200/- towards loss of
consortium, which appear to be just and proper and therefore do
not call for any interference.



15. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,29,037/-
towards loss of dependency. Upon adding the compensation
awarded under the conventional heads, the total compensation
would come to:

    Sr. No.            Nature of heads                     Amount
1               Future loss of income          Rs.30,29,037 /-

2               Loss of Consortium             Rs.1,45,200

3               Loss of estate                 Rs.18,150/-
5               Funeral expenses               Rs.18,150/-
                Total                          Rs.32,10,537/-




                                     Page 7 of 8
      C/FA/4442/2025                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




16.     For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned Tribunal is modified, and the compensation is enhanced
to    Rs.32,10,537/-              from       Rs.24,69,555/-.              The       respondent–
Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount of
Rs.7,40,982/- 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. The record and proceedings shall be
remitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.


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


18.      Award to be drawn accordingly.


                                                                  (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 02/02/2026 11:43:07




                                              Page 8 of 8