High Court of Gujarat
RITABEN JASHUBHAI CHAUHANversusSOMABHAI DHULABHAI MALIVAL
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The High Court modified the Tribunal's award, increasing compensation for future loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, and ordered the insurer to pay the additional amount.
Summary
The appellants, relatives of Jashubhai Laljibhai Chauhan who died in a road accident involving a tanker on 19-11-2021, appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income, failed to apply minimum wage rates, and undervalued loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The High Court examined the Tribunal's reliance on precedent and, applying the Supreme Court's guidance, recalculated the deceased's monthly income to Rs.9,500 and adjusted future loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium accordingly. The Court held that the Tribunal must increase the compensation by Rs.3,70,400, reflecting higher income, consortium, and other heads. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the Tribunal's award was modified, and the insurer was directed to pay the additional amount with interest and costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased's income without applying the prevailing minimum wage rate.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in the quantum awarded for loss of consortium.
- Whether the amounts awarded for loss of estate and funeral expenses were adequate.
- Whether the Tribunal's calculation of future loss of dependency complied with statutory and case law principles.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident ClaimCompensationFuture loss of dependencyLoss of consortiumMinimum wagesSection 173Motor Vehicles ActInsurance
Judgment
C/FA/2204/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2204 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
RITABEN JASHUBHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.
Versus
SOMABHAI DHULABHAI MALIVAL & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 24.07.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Kheda at Nadiad (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.1180 of 2021, 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).
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants –
Page 1 of 7
C/FA/2204/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
original Claimants and Ms. M. V. Nanavaty, learned Advocate for
respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the original record and
proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 19.11.2021, the deceased
Jashubhai Laljibhai Chauhan (who shall hereinafter be referred to
as “deceased”) was returning to his home and he was walking on
foot at the corner of Juna Rohitvas from Balasinor Bus Stand to
Rajpura Darwaja Road, at that point of time, the opponent no.1
driver of Tanker bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-AX-5121, ownership of
opponent no.2 came in very rash and negligent manner and dashed
with the deceased from behind and resultantly the deceased
sustained injuries and succumbed on the spot. 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 Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, for the appellants – original
claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed
error in assessing the income of the deceased as the Tribunal ought
to have considered the same as per rate of minimum wages of
prevalent time. Further he has submitted that the learned Tribunal
also committed error by not awarding consortium to each of the
appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) The learned Advocate Ms. M. V. Nanavaty, for the respondent –
Page 2 of 7
C/FA/2204/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal and submitted
that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and
awarded just compensation to the appellants. Hence, she has
requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and going
through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has
considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in
the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC
2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in
2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on
preponderance of probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered the
affidavit wherein all the facts of the accident have been narrated in
the chief-examination and supported the claim petition and relied
on the complaint at Exhibit 20, panchnama at Exhibit 21 and PM
report at Exhibit 23. The involvement of the vehicle, negligence and
coverage of insurance policy on the date of accident are not in
dispute. As challenge is given only qua income and consortium
hence the appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass. 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 ample evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In
the present case the accident occurred on 19.11.2021 and during
that time the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/-, whereas, the
Page 3 of 7
C/FA/2204/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/-
per month which is required to be enhanced as per minimum wages
and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as
Rs.9,500/- per month. Further, the deceased was aged 40 years
and on the basis of his age the learned Tribunal has considered
future prospective income as 25% and as the deceased was having
4 dependents 1/4 deduction towards pesonal and living expenses of
the deceased and multiplier of 15 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.
7) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.9,500/-
and future prospect of 25% = Rs.2,375/- which comes to to
Rs.11,875/- and 1/4 amount is required to be deducted as personal
expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.2,969/-
and the net amount comes to Rs.8,906/-. In view of above the
amount under the future loss of dependency is required to be
reassessed as Rs.8,906/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.16,03,080/-. Therefore,
the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.3,37,500/- under the head of future loss of dependency
income.
8) 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.1,97,000/- under the
Page 4 of 7
C/FA/2204/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
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 – original claimants are entitled for additional amount of
Rs.3,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1,650/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1,650/- towards
funeral expenses).
9) 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.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium, however, in view of above judgments the appellants –
original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased they are
entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of
consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is
reassessed as Rs.1,93,600/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 4). Therefore, the
appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.29,600/- under
the head of loss of consortium.
10) As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled
to get compensation computed as under:
Page 5 of 7
C/FA/2204/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of Rs.12,65,580/- Rs.16,03,080/-
dependency including additional
amount of Rs.3,37,500/-
Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,650/-
Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,650/-
Loss of consortium Rs.1,64,000/- Rs.1,93,600/-
including additional
amount of Rs.29,600/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 4)
Total compensation Rs.14,62,580/- Rs.18,32,980/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.3,70,400/-
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.14,62,580/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,70,400/-
(Rs.18,32,980/- - Rs.14,62,580/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 24.07.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad, in MAC Petition No.1180 of 2021
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.3,70,400/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal,
Page 6 of 7
C/FA/2204/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
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.
13) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
14) 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 16/01/2026 16:40:14
Page 7 of 7
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