THAKORE KALYANJI RAMSANGJI F/O DECD KHENGARJI DELETEDversusLH OF DECD THAKOR VIKRAMJI GOVINDJI

      C/FA/1917/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1917 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
             Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

==========================================================
  THAKORE KALYANJI RAMSANGJI F/O DECD KHENGARJI DELETED &
                          ANR.
                          Versus
        LH OF DECD THAKOR VIKRAMJI GOVINDJI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JM BAROT(143) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN B PANDYA(12491) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 04/02/2026

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

(1)     Feeling aggrieved by and dissatis ed with the judgment and award
        dated 07.12.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
        (Aux), Mehsana, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short),
        in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.190/2017, the appellants –
        original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the
        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for
        short).

(2)     Heard Mr. J. M. Barot, learned Advocate for the appellants – original
        Claimants and Mr. Manan B. Pandya, learned counsel for respondent
        No.2. Though served, none appears for rest of the respondents.

(3)     It is the case of the claimants that on 23.02.2017, the deceased
        Thakor Khengarji was going with his relative Vikramji Govindji on
        motorcycle bearing No.GJ-02-CF-7929 as a pillion rider from Ganget



                                   Page 1 of 5
      C/FA/1917/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




        to Jitoda and at that time, one unknown vehicle came and dashed
        with the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased and
        rider of the motorcycle both died on the spot. FIR came to be led at
        Chanasma Police Station. The claim petition was      led by the legal
        heirs of the deceased to get compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- from the
        opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the
        learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,30,600/- along with
        cost and interest @ 7.5 % p.a.

(4)     The appeal is led on limited ground of quantum and no further issue
        qua liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Therefore,
        learned counsel for the claimants has mainly argued that, the
        Tribunal has erred in considering monthly income of the deceased as
        Rs.3000/- on notional basis as he was serving in Viva Water Supply
        and doing work of pouch packaging and used to earn Rs.7,000/- p.m.
        Further, future prospective income is also required to be enhanced
        from 40 % to 50% and 19 multiplier should be applied considering the
        age of the deceased. The Tribunal has also wrongly deducted 1/2
        instead of 1/3. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed
        for.

(5)     Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company has
        opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has
        rightly awarded compensation in absence of any evidence of income
        and adequate compensation is awarded under the head of loss of
        consortium. Considering the law laid down in case of Sarla Verma
        (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC
        121] the Tribunal has not committed any error in deducting ½ as
        personal expenditure. Therefore, he requested to dismiss the appeal.

(6)     Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
        parties and perusing the material placed on record, it appears that
        the appeal is led only on the aspect of quantum and liability is not


                                   Page 2 of 5
      C/FA/1917/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




        challenged. The Insurance Company has not led any cross-objection.
        Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of
        quantum only. Alleged incident is not not in dispute. Involvement of
        the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the
        claimants have produced deposition of witness Thakor Gomtiben
        Kalyanji at Exh:11, death certi cate at Exh:16, Complaint at Exh:25,
        Panchnama at Exh:26 and inquest panchnama at Exh:27 and PM
        report at Exh:29. After appreciating the evidence produced on record,
        the Tribunal held the oEending vehicle sole negligent relying on the
        decisions of the Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819
        and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC
        635. From the record, it appears that the deceased was pillion rider
        and has nothing to do with the negligence or contributory
        negligence. Further, the Tribunal has considered the income of the
        deceased as Rs.3,000/- on national basis in absence of any evidence.
        As per the say of the claimants that the deceased was serving in Viva
        Water Supply and doing pouch packaging work and earning Rs.7,000/-
        p.m.

(7)     As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
        Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1)
        TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record, then
        Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum wages in absence of
        evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the present case, the
        accident occurred in the year 2017 and during that time, the
        deceased was working in water packaging company, and as per the
        minimum wages, the minimum income is required to be considered as
        Rs.7,000/-. Hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as
        Rs.7,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has considered future
        prospective income of the deceased as 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



                                   Page 3 of 5
       C/FA/1917/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




         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] are just and proper.

(8)      Therefore, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.7,000/- per
         month. By adding 40% towards future prospects, i.e. Rs.2,800/-, the
         total monthly income comes to Rs.9,800/-. After deducting 1/2
         towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which works
         out to Rs.4,900/-, the net monthly dependency is assessed at
         Rs.4,900/-. In view of the above, the amount payable under the head
         of loss of future dependency is required to be reassessed as
         Rs.4,900/- × 12 × 18 = Rs.10,58,400/-. Since the Tribunal has awarded
         Rs.4,53,600/- under this head, the appellants are entitled to an
         additional amount of Rs.6,04,800/- towards future loss of
         dependency.

(9)      Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National
         Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16)
         SCC 680, has awarded total Rs.33,000/- under the two conventional
         heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to
         be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-
         towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants – original
         claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.3,300/- (i.e.
         Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1650/- towards loss of estate and
         Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1650/- towards funeral expenses).


(10)     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 Tribunal has committed
         error in not properly awarding amount under the loss of consortium.
         However, in view of above judgments, the appellants are entitled for


                                    Page 4 of 5
         C/FA/1917/2022                                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




           loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of
           consortium is reassessed as Rs.48,400/- for one dependent).

  (11)     As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled to
           get compensation computed as under:-
                                    Heads                       Awarded by the              Reassessed by
                                                                     Tribunal                   this Court
                     Future loss of dependency                      4,53,600/-                 10,58,400/-
                     Loss of Estate                                  16,500/-                    18,150/-
                     Funeral expenses                                16,500/-                    18,150/-
                     Loss of consortium                              44,000/-                    48,400/-
                     Total compensation                             5,30,600/-                 11,43,100/-


  (12)     As Rs.5,30,600/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
  appellants – original claimants is entitled to get additional amount of
  Rs.6,12,500/- (Rs.11,43,100 – Rs.5,30,600/-) with proportionate costs and
  interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

  (13)     Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
  dated 07.12.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux),
  Mehsana, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.190/2017 stands modi ed to
  the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. It
  is provided that respondent No.2 shall deposit such additional amount of
  Rs.6,12,500/- 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.

  (14)     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 04/02/2026 14:24:57


                                                    Page 5 of 5