High Court of Gujarat
SMITABEN NAGINBHAI PATELversusCARAVAN PROJECT LOGISTICS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED @ ADMISSION STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s income and in omitting loss of consortium, and the compensation must be recalculated using the prevailing minimum wage and applicable case law, resulting in an increased award.
Summary
The appellants filed a motor accident claim after the death of Naginbhai Patel, a 70‑year‑old security guard, who was killed in a collision on 21‑04‑2021. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 7,000 and awarded compensation without a consortium component. The appellants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the Tribunal should have used the prevailing minimum wage of Rs 9,000, considered loss of consortium, and recalculated loss of estate, funeral expenses and future dependency. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the Tribunal erred in its income assessment and omission of consortium and accordingly increased the compensation. The Court modified the award to Rs 4,93,100, adding Rs 1,36,080 to the original amount, with interest and costs as directed. The remainder of the Tribunal’s award was left unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income by not applying the prevailing minimum wage.
- Whether loss of consortium should be awarded to the legal heirs.
- Whether the amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and future loss of dependency need recalculation in line with case law.
- Whether the age of the deceased precludes consideration of prospective income.
- Whether the appeal should be allowed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident ClaimCompensationLoss of DependencyLoss of ConsortiumMinimum WageSection 173Motor Vehicles ActInsurance
Judgment
C/FA/3318/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3318 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
SMITABEN NAGINBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
CARAVAN PROJECT LOGISTICS & ANR.
==============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST UNSERVED 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 09.08.2024 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.957 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).
Page 1 of 6
C/FA/3318/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants –
original Claimants and Mr. R. M. Meena, learned Advocate for
respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the original record and
proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 21.04.2021, deceased
Naginbhai dahyabhai Patel (who shall hereinafter be referred to as
“deceased”) was riding his scooty from Pansora to Bhalej road, at
that time one Truck bearing Reg. No.RJ-27-GD-4677, came from
wrong side in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the
scooty and resultantly, the deceased fell down and sustained
serious bodily 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) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed error in considering the income of the
deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month on notional basis and as he was
a security guard his income be considered as Rs.15,000/- per
month. He has further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in not
awarding consortium to each of the appellants. Hence, he has
requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 – Insurance Company
has opposed the present appeal on the ground that in absence of
Page 2 of 6
C/FA/3318/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
any evidence of income of the deceased the learned Tribunal has
rightly assessed the income and properly awarded compensation to
the appellants. 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
considered consortium to each appellants due to which loss is
suffered by the appellants, 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 21.04.2021 and during that time the deceased was
working as Security Guard, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month which is required
to be enhanced as per the rate of minimum wages and hence, the
income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.9,000/- per month.
Further, as the deceased was aged 70 years at the time of accident
the learned Tribunal has not committed any error by not
considering future prospective income. Further, the deceased left
behind two dependants 1/3 deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 05 were considered by
Page 3 of 6
C/FA/3318/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
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.9,000/-
and 1/3 amount is required to be deducted towards personal living
expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,000/- and the net
amount comes to Rs.6,000/-. In view of above the amount under
the head of future loss of dependency is required to be reassessed
as Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 05 = Rs.3,60,000/-. Therefore, the
appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.79,980/-
under the head of future loss of dependency.
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.77,000/- 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 –
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,
Page 4 of 6
C/FA/3318/2025 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.44,000/- 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.96,800/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 2). Therefore, the
appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.52,800/- 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 future Rs.2,80,020/- Rs.3,60,000/-
dependency including additional
amount of Rs.79,980/-
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.44,000/- Rs.96,800/-
including additional
amount of Rs.52,800/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 2)
Total compensation Rs.3,57,020/- Rs.4,93,100/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.1,36,080/-
Page 5 of 6
C/FA/3318/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.3,57,020/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,36,080/- (Rs.4,93,100/-
- Rs.3,57,020/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 09.08.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad, in MAC Petition No.957 of 2021
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.1,36,080/- 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 02/02/2026 15:53:38
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