HEMLATABEN DILIPBHAI CHAVDA, LH OF DECD MINOR YANSHIBEN DILIPBHAI CHAVDAversusSUNILBHAI PRAVINBHAI SAVARIYA

      C/FA/2753/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2753 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting                Yes           No

==========================================================
     HEMLATABEN DILIPBHAI CHAVDA, LH OF DECD MINOR YANSHIBEN
                        DILIPBHAI CHAVDA
                              Versus
              SUNILBHAI PRAVINBHAI SAVARIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

                               Date : 02/07/2026

                                 JUDGMENT


1.      The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Morbi in MACP No.12/2023, whereby the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.2,62,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.


2.      The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on



                                   Page 1 of 9
     C/FA/2753/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026




28.11.2021, at about 1:00 p.m., the minor deceased-Yanshiben
Dilipbhai Chavda, her father-in-law and the husband of the claimant
were returning from Ansudrali Village to Padadhra Village to their home
at Lito Ceramics by travelling on the motorcycle bearing registration
no.GJ-36N-3152. On the said motorcycle, the deceased and her father-
in-law were travelling as a pillion rider and the husband of the claimant
was driving the said motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and at an
excessive speed. When they reached at the place of accident, the
driver-husband attempted to overtake one vehicle which was going
ahead of his motorcycle without taking due care and without following
the traffic rules, in the meantime, one unknown motorcycle came from
the opposite direction and resultantly, the unknown motorcycle dashed
with the motorcycle of the claimant’s husband. Due to the impact of the
said accident, the minor deceased sustained serious injuries and
succumbed to the injuries during treatment.


3.     On being served, the respondent no.2/insurance company filed its
written statement at Exh.11, thereby denying all the averments made in
the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.


4.     Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective
parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.2,62,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate
of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.


5.     Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the original claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned



                                  Page 2 of 9
     C/FA/2753/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026




judgment and award on the ground of quantum as well as negligence.


6.     Heard learned counsels for the parties.


7.     Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted that at the time
of accident, the deceased was minor, therefore, the learned Tribunal
ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased as per
minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. He submitted that the
accident in question took place on 28.11.2021. At the relevant point of
time, the minimum wages as notified by the Government of Gujarat was
Rs.9,490/- per month. He further submitted that 40% of the income
ought to have been added on account of future prospects of the
deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded
meagre amount of compensation under conventional heads. In support
of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed the reliance
upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017
(16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130.
Having placed the reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned
counsel for the appellant prayed for enhancement of compensation.


8.     Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
accident took place owing to the composite negligence of the rider of
motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152 and rider of the
motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385. He submitted that the
learned Tribunal held both the riders contributorily negligent for causing
the accident in the ratio of 50:50. He submitted that the deceased being



                                Page 3 of 9
      C/FA/2753/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026




a pillion rider at the time of accident, sustained the injuries owing to the
composite negligence of the riders of the both motorcycles, therefore,
the learned Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% of the awarded
amount on account of the non-impleadment of the rider, owner and
insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that in case of composite
negligence, the claimant can recover the compensation from any of the
tortfeasors. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273.


9.      Per contra, Mr. Harsh A. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.2/insurance company vehemently submitted
that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation as at the time
of accident, the deceased was minor, hence, she was not having the
actual income. Therefore, in absence of any income, the learned
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.30,000/- per annum.


10.     Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 further submitted that
the claimant has not impleaded the rider, owner and insurer of the
motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385. He submitted that the
rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152 was not
holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. Therefore, the
learned Tribunal has rightly granted the recovery rights against the
owner and rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152.
Hence, he prayed for rejection of the captioned appeal.




                                 Page 4 of 9
      C/FA/2753/2025                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026




11.     Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
original claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned judgment
and award on the ground of quantum as well as negligence.


12.     So far as the negligence is concerned, at the time of accident, the
deceased was minor and she was travelling as a pillion rider on the
motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152. The learned Tribunal
after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the
conclusion that the accident had occurred owing to the composite
negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-
36N-3152 and the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-
09L-6385. The learned Tribunal has apportioned the negligence in the
ratio of 50:50 between both the riders of the motorcycles. It is not in
dispute that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider, therefore, no
negligence can be attributed to the minor deceased.


13.     So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum. The
accident in question took place on 28.11.2021. In absence of any
cogent proof of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered
the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. At the relevant
point of time, the minimum wages as notified by the Government of
Gujarat was Rs.9,490/- per month. Therefore, the income of the
deceased is reassessed at Rs.9,490/- per month. Further, considering
the age of the deceased, 40% of the monthly income is added on
account of future prospects of the deceased. Thus, after adding 40% to
the     monthly        income,   it   would         come     to    Rs.13,286/-          i.e.
(9,490+9,490X40%). It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the



                                      Page 5 of 9
      C/FA/2753/2025                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026




deceased was minor, therefore, 1/2 of the monthly income is deducted
on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, after
deducting 1/2 on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the
monthly income for calculating the future loss of dependency would
come to Rs.6,643/- i.e. (13,286-13,286X1/2). Thus, applying the
multiplier of 15 as per the age of the deceased, the future loss of
dependency would come to Rs.11,95,740/- i.e. (6,643X12X15).


14.     The      learned       Tribunal    has     awarded   meagre      amount       of
compensation under the conventional heads, therefore, a sum of
Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses and a sum
of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate.


15.     The claim petition came to be filed by the mother of the
deceased, therefore, the claimant is also entitled to get the
compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Hence accordingly,
a sum of Rs.48,400/- is awarded under the head of loss of consortium.


16.     In view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant shall be
entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following
heads:-


Sr. No.           Particular                                      Amount
1.                Future loss of dependency                       11,95,740/-
2.                Loss of consortium                              48,400/-
3.                Loss of estate                                  18,150/-
4.                Funeral expenses                                18,150/-
                  Total                                           12,80,440/-


17.     The learned Tribunal has deducted 50% of the awarded amount


                                          Page 6 of 9
      C/FA/2753/2025                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026




on account of non-impleadment of the owner, rider and insurer of the
motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385. As observed above,
the deceased succumbed to the injuries on account of composite
negligence of rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-
3152 and and rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-
6385. In case of composite negligence, the claimant can recover the
compensation from any of the tortfeasors, as held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors., reported in 2008
(3) SCC 748, Pawan kumar Vs. Harkishan Dass Mohanlal, reported
in (2014) 3 SCC 590 and Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273. In case of Khenyei
(supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 22.1 and 22.3, has observed
as under:-


      “22.1 In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue
      both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as
      liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several.


  22.3 In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is
  sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite
  negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence
  between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so
  that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the
  plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both
  of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence
  has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can
  recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.”


18.       Thus, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Khenyei (supra), the deduction of 50% of the



                                            Page 7 of 9
      C/FA/2753/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026




compensation on account of non-impleadment of the rider, owner and
insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385 is not
sustainable. Hence, the finding returned by the learned Tribunal to that
extent is set aside. However, the insurance company after paying the
entire awarded amount, may recover the 50% of the said amount from
the owner, rider and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration
no.GJ-09L-6385 by way of filing the execution petition before the
learned Tribunal concerned. So far as the remaining 50% of the
awarded amount is concerned, the learned Tribunal has observed that
the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152 was not
holding the valid driving license at the time of accident and accordingly,
the learned Tribunal has granted the recovery rights against the owner
and rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152. In
view of that, the insurance company at the first instance shall pay the
entire awarded amount and thereafter may recover 50% of the awarded
amount from the rider and owner of the motorcycle bearing registration
no.GJ-36N-3152.


19.     The      learned    Tribunal    has     already    awarded       a    sum      of
Rs.2,62,000/-          as   a    compensation,       therefore,        the      original
claimant/appellant shall be entitled for additional compensation of
Rs.10,18,440/- i.e. (12,80,440-2,62,000). The learned Tribunal has
awarded the interest at the rate of 7% per annum, therefore, the original
claimant/appellant shall be entitled for the same rate of interest on
additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim
petition till its realization.


20.     In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands
allowed partly and the impugned judgment and award is to be modified



                                       Page 8 of 9
          C/FA/2753/2025                                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026




  to the aforesaid extent. The respondent no.2/insurance company at the
  first instance shall deposit the entire awarded amount including
  additional amount of compensation along with interest and thereafter
  shall be at liberty to recover the same from the rider and owner of the
  motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152 and the rider, owner
  and insurer of motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385 in the
  ratio of 50:50 by way of filing the execution petition before the learned
  Tribunal concerned.


  21.         Upon depositing of the said amount of compensation, the learned
  Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation along with
  interest to the original claimant/appellant herein after deducting deficit of
  Court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any, lying
  deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted
  to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.


  22.         Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
  Tribunal concerned.




                                                                                      (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
  HARSHIT

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HARSHIT SANCHETI(HCD0070), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/07/2026 10:29:05




                                                            Page 9 of 9