High Court of Gujarat
HASMUKHBHAI RATILAL THAKKARversusSWETKUMAR NEPALBHAI BHOI DELETED VIDE EX 35
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The High Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the quantum of compensation by increasing the deceased’s deemed monthly income, recalculating loss of dependency, estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium, while retaining the Tribunal’s 9% interest rate.
Summary
The appellants challenged the award of compensation dated 22‑12‑2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, alleging that the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s future income, multiplier, and interest. The deceased, a 21‑year‑old engineering student, died in a road accident on 21‑02‑2010. The Tribunal had fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 10,000, applied a 40% future‑prospect factor and awarded interest at 9% per annum. The High Court, applying Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that the Tribunal failed to consider the deceased’s higher earning potential and increased the monthly income to Rs 15,000, recalculated loss of dependency, estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium, and increased the total compensation to Rs 24,01,100, while leaving the interest rate unchanged. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed and the insurance company was directed to pay the additional amount of Rs 8,34,100 with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 10,000.
- Whether the future‑prospect factor of 40% is appropriate in view of the deceased’s potential earnings.
- Whether interest should be increased from 9% to 12% per annum.
- Whether the amounts awarded for loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium are correct.
- Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier and deductions under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 168, s. 171, s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident ClaimCompensation quantumLoss of dependencyLoss of consortiumFuture income assessmentSection 173 Motor Vehicles ActInterest rateStandardization of multiplierInsurance liability
Judgment
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1014 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
HASMUKHBHAI RATILAL THAKKAR & ORS.
Versus
SWETKUMAR NEPALBHAI BHOI DELETED VIDE EX 35 & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for
the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4.1,4.2,5
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 22.12.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Anand (which shall hereinafter be referred to as
"the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.276
of 2010, 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 10
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. J. M. Thakkar, for the appellants –
original claimants and learned Advocate Mr. R. P. Raval, for the
respondent no.3 – Insurance Company. Perused the original record
and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 21.02.2010, the deceased
Alaybhai (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased”) was
travelling in Verna Car bearing Reg. No.GJ-23-A-7646, along with
others being driven by its driver at moderate speed and whey they
reached near the place of incident at that time driver of Truck
bearing Reg. No.WB-23-B-5956 was coming in rash and negligent
manner in wrong side of the road and dashed his Truck with the
Verna Car. Due to which the deceased died in the said accident. A
complaint being I-CR No.27/2010 came to be registered with Vasad
Police Station. Therefore, the appellants had filed MAC Petition
seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after
appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed
the claim petition.
4) The learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the
learned Tribunal has committed error in not considering the Income
Tax Returns produced on record and to pass appropriate
compensation though the deceased was pursuing study of Engineer
and having income and after getting the job the income would be
Rs.30,715/- per month as per 6th pay commission or Rs.63,409/-
per month as per 7th pay commission, whereas, the learned
Page 2 of 10
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
Tribunal has considered only Rs.10,000/- per month. Even in
private sector the brilliant students are getting Rs.50,000/- per
month. He has further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in
assessing future prospect in income of the deceased at 40%
instead of 50% or more and also erred in awarding 9% interest
instead of at least 12% interest per annum. Hence, he has
requested to allow the present appeal.
5) The learned Advocate for the respondent no.3 – Insurance
Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the
learned Tribunal has properly awarded the compensation in
absence of any evidence and the ITRs are having interest income
and no independent income or any engagement in profession or
activity by the deceased and after the death the interest income
will remain same and hence the learned Tribunal has properly
assessed Rs.10,000/- income of the deceased and no question
arises to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. He has further
submitted that the amount awarded towards conventional heads
are also proper. So far 6th and 7th pay commission calculation is
concerned, the same is merely hypothetical calculation which is not
permissible as per Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] as on the
date of accident the income of the deceased is required to be
considered. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
awarded 9% interest is also on higher side and no question arises
Page 3 of 10
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
to increase the same to 12%. Hence, he has requested to dismiss
the appeal.
6) Since appeal is filed on the ground of quantum, the involvement of
the vehicles, negligence, liability and coverage of insurance policy
are not challenged and hence the appeal is required to be decided
in narrow compass.
7) So far pecuniary loss is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
considered the age of the deceased as 21 years at the time of
accident and he was pursuing study in B. E. Mechanical Engineering
having bright career. As per the ITR of 2007-08 at Exhibit 75 the
deceased was having income of interest of Rs.3,50,787/-, and ITR
of 2008-09 at Exhibit 77 having Rs.4,37,982/-. In the said ITRs the
income from interest is shown and interest income from M/s R.B.
Thakker and M/s Haresh Traders is shown and both the firms
belong to HUF and copy of acknowledgment is produced at Exhibit
76. Perusing the aforesaid facts, the income remains continuous
after his death which reveals from the evidence. In cross-
examination the Chartered Accountant has admitted that this
income of interest on the Fixed Deposit Receipts and said income
received regularly by the legal heirs of the deceased. Hence,
question does not arise to consider income towards future loss or to
assess the income of the deceased, because regular income will
remains continuous and legal heirs will not suffer any kind of loss of
above income from interest, hence, the learned Tribunal has not
Page 4 of 10
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
committed error in not considering the ITRs at Exhibit 75 and 77.
So far the deceased was aspirant of Government Job and having
bright future after completing study in Engineering is concerned,
the income as per 6th and 7th pay commission was in the year 2012
or 2016 and Circulars are produced at Exhibits 97 to 100, are of the
Government Servant but the accident took place in the year 2010
and at that time the deceased was studying and not a Government
Servant and the income is required to be considered as on the date
of accident as per the settled principle of law. In this regard
reference is required to be made to the judgment in the case of
Sarla Verma (supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, wherein,
paragraph 57 read as under:
“57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just
compensation” and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can
never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be
perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of
proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of
materials brought on record in an individual case. The
conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed
through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-
violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death,
the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an
apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though
the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is
obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the
expression, that is, “just compensation”. The
determination has to be on the foundation of evidence
Page 5 of 10
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
brought on record as regards the age and income of the
deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be
applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly
stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in
Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated
earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The
tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic
principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in
proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money
cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made
for grant of just compensation having uniformity of
approach. There has to be a balance between the two
extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza
and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the
tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an
endeavour has been made by this Court for
standardization which in its ambit includes addition of
future prospects on the proven income at present. As far
as future prospects are concerned, there has been
standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty,
stability and consistency. We approve the principle of
“standardization” so that a specific and certain
multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on
the basis of age.”
8) The learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as
Rs.10,000/- per month, however, this Court is of the considered
view that considering that the deceased was pursuing Degree
Engineering, his future prospects as a promising young man and his
potential to earn more in the future, in light of Narender Dev
Poonia Vs. Hasan Mohd. reported in 2025 (0) JX (SC) 1619),
this Court deems it fit to consider the income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/- per month.
Page 6 of 10
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
9) Further, as the deceased was aged 21 years at the time of accident
on the basis of which the learned Tribunal has considered future
prospective income as 40% is properly considered as the deceased
was not having a permanent job. The deceased was unmarried and
hence 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses 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.
10) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.6,000/- which comes to
Rs.21,000/- and 1/2 amount is required to be deducted towards
personal living expenses 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 dependency is required
to be reassessed as Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.22,68,000/-.
Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.7,56,000/- towards loss of dependency.
11) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported
in 2017 ACJ 2700, has awarded total Rs.55,000/- 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,
Page 7 of 10
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants –
original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/-
(i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral
expenses).
12) 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 learned Tribunal
has committed error in awarding only Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
love and affection, however, in view of above judgments the
appellant nos.1 and 2 – being parents of the deceased are entitled
for Rs.48,400/- each towards filial consortium under the head of
loss of consortium, whereas, the appellant no.3 being sister of the
deceased is not entitled for any amount towards loss of consortium.
Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as
Rs.96,800/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 2). Therefore, the appellants are
entitled for additional amount of Rs.71,800/- towards loss of
consortium instead of love and affection.
13) As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled
to get compensation computed as under:
Page 8 of 10
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of dependency Rs.15,12,000/- Rs.22,68,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.7,56,000/-
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 love and Rs.25,000/- Rs.96,800/-
affection / Loss of including additional
consortium amount of Rs.71,800/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 2)
Total compensation Rs.15,67,000/- Rs.24,01,100/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.8,34,100/-
14) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.15,67,000/- , however, as discussed above the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.8,34,100/-
(Rs.24,01,100/- - Rs.15,67,000/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
15) So far the argument of the learned Advocate to increase the
interest from 9% to 12 % is concerned, it is the discretion of the
under Section 171 of the MV Act and hence the learned Tribunal
has not committed any error in awarding interest @ 9% per
annum.
16) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 22.12.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Page 9 of 10
C/FA/1014/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026
Tribunal (Aux.), Anand, in MAC Petition No.276 of 2010 stands
modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award
remains unaltered. The respondent no.3 - Insurance Company shall
deposit the said additional amount of Rs.8,34,100/- 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.
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)
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 28/01/2026 17:06:30
Page 10 of 10
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Accident Claim"Sign in to search