LHR OF DECD. BHAVESHBHAI DINESHBHAI FALDU, DINESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI FALDU (FATHER OF DECD.)versusKISHORKUMAR DAMJIBHAI CHAVDA

     C/FA/967/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 967 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                 Yes          No

==========================================================
LHR OF DECD. BHAVESHBHAI DINESHBHAI FALDU, DINESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI
                      FALDU (FATHER OF DECD.)
                                Versus
              KISHORKUMAR DAMJIBHAI CHAVDA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
M S PADALIYA(7406) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 06/01/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1)     Feeling aggrieved by and dissatis:ed with the judgment and award
dated 31.12.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
Rajkot, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1370 of 2016, the appellant –
claimant has 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 counsel for the appellant,
Mr.Padaliya, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3)     It is the case of the claimants that on 09.09.2016, deceased



                                  Page 1 of 9
     C/FA/967/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




Bhaveshbhai was going on motorcycle by following traBc rules and in
controlled manner, at that time, one Truck bearing No.GJ-03-T-4182, driven
by respondent No.1 came from behind in rash and negligent manner and
dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, he succumbed
to it. Therefore, the claimant who is father of the deceased :led a claim
petition for getting compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. After appreciating the
evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.12,93,600/-
along with interest at the rate of 9 % from the date of claim petition.

4)     Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal
committed an error in not properly considering the income of the appellant
in accordance with the settled position of law. Though suBcient evidence
was produced on record, the Tribunal failed to consider the quantum
aspect. The Tribunal did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and
committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at only
Rs.8,000/- per month, despite the fact that he was earning between
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.55,000/- per month. The deceased was working as a
lecturer at Dholakia School and was also employed as a service adviser at
Shree Siddhi Vinayak Honda Motors. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/- per month.

5)     Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the Degree
Certi:cate issued by GTU at Exh.47, submitted that the deceased held
degree in Automobile Engineering. The salary slips of the deceased for the
period from April 2016 to August 2016 at Exh.36, the bank statement of
Dholakia School at Exh.37, and other documentary evidence at Exhs.43 and
44 were also not considered by the Tribunal. Further, though the deceased
had sustained 21% permanent disability of the body as a whole, the
Tribunal committed an error in considering future prospective income at
40%.




                                  Page 2 of 9
     C/FA/967/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




6)     He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Narender Dev Poonia v. Hasan Mohd. [2025 (0) JX (SC) 1619] and
requested that the monthly income of the deceased be considered at least
at Rs.15,000/-. On these grounds, he has prayed for allowing the appeal as
prayed for.


7)     Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has
opposed the present appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has properly
considered and appreciated the evidence on record. The claim petition was
:led by the appellant as a pauper, wherein it was clearly stated that the
claimant had no suBcient means and owned property, including household
articles, worth only Rs.2,500/-. These facts were disclosed on oath in an
application :led before the Tribunal under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly
appreciated the evidence and has not believed the documents produced by
the appellant for valid reasons. The alleged engagement of the deceased
with the school was not proved and does not inspire con:dence. It was
contended that the brother of the deceased was working in the said school
and was also running a tuition class, and that undue advantage of such
association with Dholakia School was sought to be taken with a view to
claim exorbitant compensation. Even the status of the said institution itself
is in dispute.


8)     It is also submitted by learned counsel Mr. Nanavaty that witness
No.33, Rohitbhai Fulbhai Rank, had no personal knowledge of the
employment of the deceased, nor any documents such as an appointment
letter of the deceased, income-tax returns of the school, or other relevant
records were produced. The witness was also unaware of the school timings
and duty hours of the deceased. It was further submitted that, though the
school allegedly had 150 to 200 employees, no ESI or Provident Fund was
deducted, and the witness failed to say that which subjects were taught by



                                  Page 3 of 9
     C/FA/967/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




the deceased in the school. He also failed to produce on record any salary
slips or bulk posting intimation statement for the month of May also
because at that time, generally vacation period is in the school. Therefore,
in the absence of such material evidence, the Tribunal has properly
appreciated the evidence on record and awarded compensation which is
just and proper. It was further submitted that the deceased was a Diploma
Engineer in Automobile Engineering and was working as a service adviser at
Shree Siddhi Vinayak Honda Motors, earning a salary of Rs.3,500/- per
month. Thus, in total, he was receiving an income of Rs.6,457/- per month.
Provident Fund details, muster rolls, and other relevant documents were
produced on record, and after considering the same, the Tribunal has
rightly assigned cogent reasons for not believing the appellant’s claim
regarding higher income.


9)     Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the present appeal
is :led on the ground of quantum of compensation. This Court is required
to consider the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant on the basis of the evidence produced on record. It is an
undisputed fact that the claim petition was :led by the appellant as a
pauper, wherein he declared his property worth Rs.2,500/-. The evidence of
the claimant was produced at Exh.25, and in order to prove the income of
the deceased, two witnesses were examined at Exhs.33 and 41. The degree
certi:cate of the deceased was produced at Exh.47, from which it appears
that the deceased held a degree in Automobile Engineering. The
involvement of the oJending vehicle and the age of the deceased are not in
dispute. As per the case of the claimant, the deceased was working as a
lecturer at Dholakia School and also worked as a service adviser at Shree
Siddhi Vinayak Honda Motors and thereby, earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
Upon perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the deceased had
joined the school on 01.04.2016 and that the accident occurred on
09.09.2016. As per the evidence, payment was made on an hourly basis. The


                                 Page 4 of 9
      C/FA/967/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




bank account statement produced at Exh.37 shows that from April to July
2016, a gross payment of Rs.38,950/- was made. However, in the cross-
examination produced at Exh.33, the witness failed to state the educational
quali:cations of the deceased, the subjects taught by him at the school, or
the school timings. No muster roll or pay slip was produced on record.
Further, though the school allegedly had around 150 to 200 employees, no
ESI or Provident Fund deductions were made. No salary slip for the months
of August or September 2016 was produced. The witness was also unable
to state whether the deceased attended the school after July 2016 or not.
Moreover, no account statements or income-tax returns of the school were
produced on record by the said witness


10)     Even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the deceased was
working with the said school, it is evident that he was receiving
remuneration on lecture basis and was not in permanent employment.
Therefore, the question of considering 50% future prospects does not arise.
Accordingly, the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the
appellant in this regard are not acceptable. As per the evidence of the
claimant, it has been stated that the brother of the deceased was working
with Dholakia School and had no relationship with the management of the
school, and that the elder brother of the deceased was also previously
working in the said school. As per the salary slips produced at Exh.36, the
deceased was receiving salary from April to July 2016, however, the bank
account of the deceased had a balance of only Rs.6,000/-. The deceased was
not paying any income tax, nor any corroborative evidence was produced to
establish that he was parallel serving as a lecturer at Dholakia School and as
a service adviser at Shree Siddhi Vinayak Honda Motors during the same
period. Witness Narendrabhai Chauhan, Manager of Shree Siddhi Vinayak
Honda Motors, examined at Exh.41, produced the appointment letter at
Exh.43 and the salary certi:cate for the period from April to July 2016, from
which it appears that the deceased was receiving a salary of Rs.6,457/- per
month, along with incentives of Rs.1,150/-, thereby receiving a total amount


                                   Page 5 of 9
      C/FA/967/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




of Rs.7,607/- per month.


11)     Considering the aforesaid facts and the evidence produced on record,
the Tribunal has rightly discarded the evidence relating to Dholakia School,
on the basis of which, the appellant wanted to prove the income of the
deceased at Rs.45,000/- per month, that too for part-time engagement as a
lecturer. The Tribunal has therefore assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.8,000/- per month. Further, the deceased was working in two shifts, in
absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, does not inspire con:dence.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the higher income was
projected only with a view to claim exorbitant compensation. As no error
has been committed by the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence led by the
claimant regarding the alleged income of the school teacher at Exhibit 33,
the Tribunal has rightly discarded the said evidence, and the same does not
require any interference. At the same time, this Court is of also considered
view that the deceased was pursuing degree engineering course and he was
earning during his study also. Therefore, considering the engineering
degree of the deceased, his future prospects as a promising young man, and
his potential to earn more in the future, in light of Narender Dev Poonia
(supra), this Court deems it :t to consider the income of the deceased at
₹15,000/- per month only with a view to award just compensation, though
the Tribunal has not committed any error.


12)     It is well settled that there must be a balance between the two
extremes, namely, a windfall and a pittance, a bonanza and a modicum.
Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is not intended to be a
bonanza. The concept of “just compensation” must be viewed through the
prism of fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to the principle of equity.
In a case of death, the legal heirs of the deceased cannot expect a windfall;
at the same time, the compensation awarded should not be illusory or
merely token. It must be just, fair, and reasonable.



                                  Page 6 of 9
      C/FA/967/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




13)     It is pertinent to note that, the Tribunal is not a passive observer. The
Tribunal has taken holistic view and accepted the evidence based on tested
veracity of version or testimony of witnesses rather than accepted the same
based on face value. Appreciation of evidence must stern from the
prudence, reasonableness and intelligence of Tribunal. Trustworthiness of
evidence is material and important. Further, the Tribunal should not shut
eyes and restrain to appreciate the evidence and whatever the evidence
tenders by the claimant should be accepted as it is as in every trial and all
judicial process, truth is guiding star.

14)     In view of the above observations, the income of the deceased is
reassessed as Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has rightly
considered future prospective income of the deceased at 40 %. As the
deceased was unmarried, 1/2 deduction as personal expenditure and living
of the deceased and multiplier of 18 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.

15)     Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and
future prospect of 40% = Rs.6,000/- which comes to Rs.21,000/- and 1/2nd
amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of
the deceased which comes to Rs.10,500/- and the net amount comes to
Rs.10,500/-. In view of above, the amount under the head of loss of future
dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.10,500/- x 12 months x 18
multiplier = Rs.22,68,000/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.10,58,400/- under the head of future loss of
dependency.

16)     Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi
(supra) has awarded total Rs.36,000/- under the two conventional heads,
however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to be reassessed


                                    Page 7 of 9
      C/FA/967/2025                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses.
Therefore, the appellant – original claimant is entitled for additional
amount of Rs.300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.18,000/- = Rs.150/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.18,000/- = Rs.150/- towards funeral expenses).

17)     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.48,400/- for
claimant.

18)     As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled to
get compensation computed as under:-
                           Heads                      Awarded by the          Reassessed
                                                         Tribunal             by this Court
                       Future loss of                   12,09,600/-            22,68,000/-
                        dependency
                       Loss of Estate                     18,000/-               18,150/-
                      Funeral expenses                    18,000/-               18,150/-
                           Loss of                        48000/-                48,400/-
                         consortium
                            Total                       12,93,600/-            23,52,700/-
                       compensation


  19)As Rs.12,93,600/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
        appellant– original claimant is entitled to get additional amount of
        Rs.10,59,100/- (Rs.23,52,700/- - Rs.12,93,600/-) with proportionate
        costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

  20)Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
        dated 31.12.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
        at Rajkot, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1370 of 2016 stands
        modi:ed to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award
        remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.2 shall deposit


                                        Page 8 of 9
            C/FA/967/2025                                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




              such additional amount of Rs.10,59,100/- 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.

         21)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 09/01/2026 13:15:37




                                                       Page 9 of 9