RAJUBEN PAPPUBHAI AMBALIYAversusBALDEVBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SOLANKI

     C/FA/1652/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1652 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

            Approved for Reporting                Yes            No
                                                             ✔
==========================================================
                   RAJUBEN PAPPUBHAI AMBALIYA & ORS.
                                Versus
                BALDEVBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 13/01/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT


1.     This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 13.10.2022
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Anand in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.245 of 2017.


2.     Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.


3.     The brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2016 at about
11:00 p.m. The deceased, Pappubhai, was walking on the left
side of the Vataman–Tarapur Road near Fatepura Crossing,
close to Shere-Punjab Hotel. At that time, Opponent No.1 came
riding a motorcycle bearing Engine No. HA10ERGHC68814 and

                                  Page 1 of 6
     C/FA/1652/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




Chassis No. MBLHA10CGGHC67996 at a very high speed and in
a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, and
dashed against Pappubhai. As a result of the said accident,
Pappubhai             sustained   serious     injuries   and     subsequently
succumbed thereto.


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 20165. 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.


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. It is
submitted that in the claim petition, the claimant has stated that
the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month; therefore, the
question       of      considering   minimum       wages   does      not    arise.
Therefore, this Court may 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


                                     Page 2 of 6
     C/FA/1652/2024                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




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 2016. The
evidence adduced before the Tribunal includes the affidavit of
chief examination at Exhibit-23, the F.I.R. at Exhibit-26, the
panchnama of the place of offence at Exhibit-27, the panchnama
of the dead body at Exhibit-28, the inquest panchnama at
Exhibit-29, and the post-mortem report at Exhibit-32..


7.     It appears from the affidavit that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, and
the same fact was also brought out during cross-examination.
However, at the time of the accident, the minimum wages were
Rs.7,700/-. Irrespective of any proof of income, to award just
and proper compensation, the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2016.
Considering the minimum wages of an unskilled worker ensures
uniformity        and   justice,   even    if     the   claimants       belong       to
economically weaker sections of society. This Court is, therefore,
of the considered view that the minimum wages prevailing in
2016 ought to be taken into account while determining
compensation. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased
is considered to be Rs.7,700/- for the purpose of awarding just
and proper compensation. The learned Tribunal committed an
error in assessing the income. Further, as the deceased was in
the age group of 50 to 51 years, in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport



                                    Page 3 of 6
      C/FA/1652/2024                       JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier is
11, which was properly considered by the Tribunal. In view of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 68, the Tribunal has
correctly considered 10% towards future prospects.

8.      Therefore, by adding 10% (Rs.770/-) towards future
prospects, the total monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.8,470/-. As there are four claimants, in view of the settled
principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), one-fourth of the
income, i.e., Rs.2,117/-, is required to be deducted towards
personal expenses. Accordingly, the monthly loss of dependency
amounts to Rs.6,353/- (Rs.8,470 – Rs.2,117).


9.      Considering that the deceased was in the relevant age
group at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is
“11” as per Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs.8,38,596/- (Rs.6,353 × 12 × 11).


10.     As regards the conventional heads, the Tribunal had
awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is
required to be enhanced to Rs.1,92,800/- (Rs.48,200 × 4), as
there are four claimants. The Tribunal had 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/-.


11.     Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.18,150/-
towards loss of estate, Rs.1,92,800/- towards loss of consortium,


                             Page 4 of 6
      C/FA/1652/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral and transportation expenses.


12.     Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,38,596/-
towards loss of future income. Upon adding the compensation
under the conventional heads, the total amount comes to:


     Sr. No.           Nature of heads                     Amount
 1              Future loss of income          Rs.8,38,596/-

 2              Loss of Consortium             Rs.48,200x4= Rs.1,92,800/-

 3              Loss of estate                 Rs.18,150/-
 5              Funeral expenses               Rs.18,150/-
                Total                          Rs.10,67,696/-




13. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.4,42,096/- (Rs.10,67,696 – Rs.6,25,600)
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
the claim petition till realization.



14.     It is needless to say that the Motor Vehicles Act is a
benevolent legislation which has been framed with the object of
providing relief to the victims, or their families and there is no
bar that compensation is restricted up to the claim by the
claimant and the High Court and Tribunal have to award the
compensation up to that extent. In this regard reference is
required to be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and
others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274,


                                     Page 5 of 6
      C/FA/1652/2024                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




wherein, it has been observed that there is no restriction that
compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed
by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence
brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the
claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed.


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.10,67,696/-
from Rs.6,25,600. Respondent – Insurance Company shall
deposit the said additional amount of Rs.4,42,096/- 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.
However, as per the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Application (for
condonation of delay) No. 1825 of 2024, the Court has observed
that no interest shall be paid for the delay of 405 days in
preferring the present First Appeal. Therefore, interest for the
said period of 405 days is directed to be deducted. 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 15/01/2026 16:41:11

                                              Page 6 of 6