High Court of Gujarat
RASUBEN BHAGVANBHAI RABARIversusHIRENBHAI GUNENDRABHAI PRASADIYA
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Tribunal’s award was erroneous and must be increased by Rs 3,65,716, adjusting future loss of income, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as per Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Summary
The appellants, heirs of deceased victims of a road accident on 9 August 2014, challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging mis‑calculation of future loss of income, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The High Court held that where no proof of income is produced, the Tribunal must use the prevailing minimum‑wage rates and apply the Supreme Court’s methodology for multipliers, deductions and future prospects. It further held that the Tribunal erred by awarding a lower amount for loss of consortium contrary to Supreme Court precedents. Accordingly, the Court recalculated the compensation, increasing future loss of income by Rs 1,57,416, loss of estate and funeral expenses by Rs 3,150 each, and loss of consortium by Rs 2,02,000, resulting in an additional total of Rs 3,65,716 per appeal. The appeals were partly allowed and the Tribunal’s award was modified to reflect the enhanced amounts, with the insurance respondents directed to pay the additional sums with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s income without proof and should apply minimum‑wage rates under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether the loss of consortium awarded by the Tribunal complies with Supreme Court precedents.
- Whether the amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses were correctly assessed.
- Whether the appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act are maintainable on these grounds.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident ClaimCompensationFuture loss of incomeLoss of consortiumSection 173Minimum wagesSupreme Court precedent
Judgment
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1961 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2036 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
GEETABEN WD/O HEMRAJBHAI RABARI & ORS.
Versus
HIRENBHAI GUNENDRABHAI PRASADIYA & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/02/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Since both the appeals are arising out of the same accident
and the grounds and issue involved in the appeals are common,
they have been heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment. The First Appeal No.1961 of 2024 arises out of
MAC Petition No.161 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.586 of 2014)
and First Appeal No.2036 of 2024 arises out of MAC Petition No.160
of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.585 of 2014).
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
Page 1 of 10
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
dated 14.02.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux), Petlad (which shall hereinafter be referred to as
"the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.161
of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.586 of 2014), and 160 of 2018 (Old
MAC Petition No.585 of 2014), the appellants – original claimants
have preferred the present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the
Act" for short).
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, for the appellants –
original Claimants, learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak, for the
respondent no.2 – Insurance Company and learned Advocate Mr.
Vibhuti Nanavati for respondent no.4 – Insurance Company.
Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 09.08.2014, the deceased
were travelling from Devataj in Toofan Cruiser bearing Reg. No.GJ-
07-BB-7086, and proceeded towards Gandhar and whey they
reached at the place of incident tyre of the said car got punctured
and hence the driver of the car has parked his car on road side and
they are standing near the car at that time the opponent no.1 came
by driving the Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-03-AT-1800 in rash and
negligent manner and dashed with the car as a result of which car
went to the road side ditch and deceased sustained injuries and
succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the appellants have filed MAC
Petitions seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after
Page 2 of 10
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
appreciating the evidence produced on record the has partly
allowed both the claim petitions.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed error by considering notional income of the
deceased and not awarded loss of consortium to each of the
appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow both the appeals.
5) Learned Advocates for respondent nos.2 and 4 – Insurance
Companies have opposed the present appeals on the ground that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by properly appreciating
the evidence produced on record and hence the same is just, legal
and proper and no interference is required to call for. With these
submissions they have requested to dismiss both the appeals.
6) As both the appeals are filed on limited grounds the same are
required to be decided in narrow compass.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1961 of 2024
(MAC PETITION NO.161 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.586 of
2014))
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 rates of minimum
wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the deceased.
In the present case the accident was occurred on 09.08.2014 and
Page 3 of 10
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
during that time the deceased was doing agricultural and animal
husbandry work and on the basis of which the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month
which is required to be enhanced by considering the rate of
minimum wages of the year 2014 and hence, the income of the
deceased is reassessed as Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, the
Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 44 years and on
the basis of it 25% addition towards future prospect, and the
deceased having 5 dependents deduction of ¼ towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 14 were
considered 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.
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-
and future prospect of 25% = Rs.1,500/- which comes to
Rs.7,500/- and 1/4 amount is required to be deducted as personal
expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.1,875/-
and the net amount comes to Rs.5,625/-. In view of above the
amount towards future loss of income is required to be reassessed
as Rs.5,625/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.9,45,000/-. Therefore, the
appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,57,416/-
towards future loss of income.
9) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported
Page 4 of 10
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
in 2017 ACJ 2700, has awarded total Rs.70,000/- 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,
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants
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).
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 erred
in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however,
in view of above judgments the appellants being legal heirs of the
deceased are entitled to get Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of
loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of
consortium is reassessed as Rs.2,42,000/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 5).
Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of
Rs.2,02,000/- towards loss of consortium.
11) As discussed above, the appellants are entitled to get compensation
computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.7,87,584/- Rs.9,45,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,57,416/-
Page 5 of 10
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.2,42,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.2,02,000/-
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/-
Total compensation Rs.8,57,585/- Rs.12,23,300/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.3,65,716/-
12) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.8,57,584/- (due to arithmetical mistake the Tribunal has
mentioned Rs.8,57,585/-), however, as discussed above the
appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/-
with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
FIRST APPEAL NO.2036 of 2024
(MAC PETITION NO.160 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition
No.585 of 2014))
13) 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 rates of minimum
wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the deceased.
In the present case the accident was occurred on 09.08.2014 and
during that time the deceased was working as Clerk in Dairy and
also doing agricultural and animal husbandry work and on the basis
Page 6 of 10
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
of which the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.5,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced by
considering the rate of minimum wages of the year 2014 and
hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.6,000/-
per month. Further, the Tribunal has considered the age of the
deceased as 44 years and on the basis of it 25% addition towards
future prospect, and the deceased having 5 dependents deduction
of ¼ towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and
multiplier of 14 were considered 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.
14) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-
and future prospect of 25% = Rs.1,500/- which comes to
Rs.7,500/- and 1/4 amount is required to be deducted as personal
expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.1,875/-
and the net amount comes to Rs.5,625/-. In view of above the
amount towards future loss of income is required to be reassessed
as Rs.5,625/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.9,45,000/-. Therefore, the
appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,57,416/-
towards future loss of income.
15) 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.70,000/- under the three
Page 7 of 10
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount
is required to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants
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).
16) 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 erred
in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however,
in view of above judgments the appellants being legal heirs of the
deceased are entitled to get Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of
loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of
consortium is reassessed as Rs.2,42,000/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 5).
Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of
Rs.2,02,000/- towards loss of consortium.
17) As discussed above, the appellants are entitled to get compensation
computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.7,87,584/- Rs.9,45,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,57,416/-
Page 8 of 10
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.2,42,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.2,02,000/-
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/-
Total compensation Rs.8,57,585/- Rs.12,23,300/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.3,65,716/-
18) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.8,57,584/- (due to arithmetical mistake the Tribunal has
mentioned Rs.8,57,585/-), however, as discussed above the
appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/-
with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
19) In the wake of above, the appellants of First Appeal No.2036 of
2024 are entitled to receive additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/-
and the appellants of First Appeal No.1961 of 2024 are entitled
to receive additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/- with proportionate
costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
20) Hence, both the present appeals are partly allowed. The judgment
and award dated 14.02.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Petlad, in MAC Petition Nos.161 of 2018
(Old MAC Petition No.586 of 2014) and No.160 of 2018 (Old MAC
Page 9 of 10
C/FA/1961/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
Petition No.585 of 2014), stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered.
21) In First Appeal No.1961 of 2024, the respondents – Insurance
Companies shall deposit the said additional amount of
Rs.3,65,716/- along with interest in the ratio as awarded by the
Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of this order.
22) In First Appeal No.2036 of 2024 the respondents – Insurance
Companies shall deposit the said additional amount of
Rs.3,65,716/- along with interest in the ratio as awarded by the
Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of this order.
23) Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
24) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
25) 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 10/02/2026 17:01:56
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