High Court of Gujarat
SOMABHAI NATHUBHAI RABARIversusPATEL BHIKHABHAI PRABHUDAS
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The High Court modified the Tribunal's award, increasing compensation for loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium in accordance with applicable Supreme Court precedents.
Summary
The appellants, heirs of the deceased Puriben who died from injuries sustained in a road accident on 10 February 2014, appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.5,60,050 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They contended that the Tribunal erred by assessing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.4,500 and by inadequately quantifying loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The High Court examined the applicable Supreme Court precedents and held that, in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal must use the prevailing minimum wage, leading to a revised monthly income of Rs.5,750. Recalculations increased the loss of dependency award to Rs.6,26,208, loss of estate and funeral expenses to Rs.18,150 each, and loss of consortium to Rs.2,42,000, adding a total of Rs.3,44,458 to the compensation. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the Tribunal's award while leaving the rest of the order unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased's income in the absence of documentary proof.
- Whether the Tribunal should have applied the prevailing minimum wage for income calculation.
- Whether the amounts awarded for loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium were adequate under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the relevant Supreme Court ratios for compensation.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident ClaimCompensationLoss of DependencyLoss of ConsortiumMinimum WageSection 173Motor Vehicles Act
Judgment
C/FA/2660/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2660 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
SOMABHAI NATHUBHAI RABARI & ORS.
Versus
PATEL BHIKHABHAI PRABHUDAS & ANR.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 31.07.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Mahesana (which shall hereinafter be referred to
as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.261 of 2015, 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. Yogendra Thakore, learned Advocate for appellants –
original claimants and Mr. R. P. Raval, learned Advocate for
Page 1 of 6
C/FA/2660/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
respondent – Insurance Company.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 10.02.2014, the deceased
Puriben (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased”) along
with other by sitting in Chhota Hathi bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-AV-
4659, of their relative Maheshbhai Rabari were returning from
Delmal after offering prayer and were going from Chanasma to
Mahesana. At that time one Turbo Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-02-Z-
6437, being driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed with
Chhota Hathi due to which the deceased sustained injuries and
shifted to Lions General Hospital for treatment. On 15.02.2014 the
deceased succumbed to the injuries. 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) Learned Advocate for the appellants – claimants has submitted that
the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the income
of the deceased at only Rs.4,500/- and failed to consider that she
was doing cattle feeding and selling milk to Borissana Dudh
Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Ltd., and also erred in not awarding
sufficient amount towards conventional heads. Hence, he has
requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal
Page 2 of 6
C/FA/2660/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
has rightly assessed the income of the deceased in absence of
evidence of income and properly appreciated the evidence produced
on record and awarded the compensation. Hence, he has requested
to dismiss the present appeal.
6) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has
not considered minimum wages of prevalent time and also not
awarded sufficient amount towards conventional heads, 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 evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the present case
the accident occurred on 10.02.2014 and during that time the
deceased was doing business of selling milk to Mandali and animal
husbandry, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month which is required to be
enhanced as per the rate of minimum wages of the prevalent time
and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as
Rs.5,750/- per month. Further, as the deceased was aged 51
years at the time of accident on the basis of which the learned
Tribunal has considered future prospective income as 10% and as
the deceased was having five dependents 1/4 deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 11
were considered by the learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the
Page 3 of 6
C/FA/2660/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
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.5,750/-
and future prospect of 10% = Rs.575/- which comes to Rs.6,325/-
and 1/4 amount is required to be deducted towards personal living
expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.1,581/- and the net
amount comes to Rs.4,744/-. In view of above the amount under
the head of loss of future dependency income is required to be
reassessed as Rs.4,744/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.6,26,208/-. Therefore,
the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.1,36,158/- towards 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.70,000/- under 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).
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,
Page 4 of 6
C/FA/2660/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
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.2,42,000/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 5). Therefore, the
appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.2,02,000/-
under the head of loss of consortium.
10) As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled
to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of dependency Rs.4,90,050/- Rs.6,26,208/-
income including additional
amount of Rs.1,36,158/-
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 consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.2,42,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.2,02,000/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 5)
Total compensation Rs.5,60,050/- Rs.9,04,508/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.3,44,458/-
Page 5 of 6
C/FA/2660/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.5,60,050/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,44,458/- (Rs.9,04,508/-
- Rs.5,60,050/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 31.07.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Mahesana, in MAC Petition No.261 of 2015 stands
modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award
remains unaltered. The respondent no.2 - Insurance Company shall
deposit the said additional amount of Rs.3,44,458/- 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.
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 03/02/2026 11:44:46
Page 6 of 6
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