High Court of Gujarat
CHANDUBHAI SABURBHAI PARMARversusPRADIPKUMAR SHAILESHBHAI PATEL
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the Tribunal's award is modified to increase the total compensation by Rs.2,12,268.
Summary
The appellants, parents of Vishalkumar Chandubhai Parmar who died in a bus‑motorcycle collision, appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.8,000 and in the quantum awarded under the heads of future loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, recalculated the deceased's income at the prevailing minimum wage of Rs.11,700, applied the correct deduction for personal expenses, and recomputed the compensation, increasing the total by Rs.2,12,268. The Court held that the Tribunal’s assessment was erroneous and modified the award accordingly. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay the additional amount with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's monthly income for compensation purposes.
- Whether the Tribunal correctly calculated future loss of dependency based on the assessed income.
- Whether the amounts awarded under loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium were proper.
- Whether the Tribunal's deduction of personal expenditure was appropriate.
- Whether the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable on these grounds.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident ClaimCompensationFuture loss of dependencyLoss of estateFuneral expensesLoss of consortiumSection 173Motor Vehicles Act
Judgment
C/FA/4219/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4219 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
CHANDUBHAI SABURBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
PRADIPKUMAR SHAILESHBHAI PATEL & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 08/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Kheda at Kapadwanj (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.61 of 2023, 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 Ms. P. H. Hotchandani, learned Advocate for the
Page 1 of 6
C/FA/4219/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026
appellants – original Claimants and Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned
Advocate for respondent – ST Corporation. Perused the original
record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 31.05.2023, the son of
applicant nos.1 and 2, namely Vishalkumar Chandubhai Parmar,
(who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased”) was riding
his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-07-CQ-6307, which was
being driven at slow speed by the rider of the motorcycle, when
they reached Kapadwanj – Dakor road, the driver of ST Bus
bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-Z-8249, which was owned by opponent
no.2 came driving the bus on the wrong side of the road at high
speed, in rash and negligent manner and collided with the
motorcycle of the deceased from the front side. As a result of
which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the
spot. A complaint was lodged being I-C.R.No.11204028230211
of 2023, with Kapadwanj Police Station. Therefore, the
appellants have filed MAC Petition seeking compensation,
wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence
produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal
has erred in assuming income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per
month while looking to the occupation the Tribunal ought to
have consider at least Rs.20,000/- per month. Further, the
Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount under three
conventional heads.
5) As challenge is given only qua income and three conventional
heads hence the appeal is required to be decided in narrow
compass. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Page 2 of 6
C/FA/4219/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026
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 31.05.2023 and during that time the
deceased was doing labour work and the Tribunal has assessed
the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month which is
required to be assessed as per the rate of minimum wages of
unskilled labour in the year 2023 and hence, the income of the
deceased is reassessed as Rs.11,700/- per month. Moreover,
perusing the impugned judgment it appears that the learned
Tribunal has also committed error while considering deduction of
1/3rd, but as the deceased was bachelor ½ deduction towards
personal expenditure and living of the deceased is required to be
considered. Though no cross objection or appeal is filed, there is
no bar to consider the same in light of decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ravindrakumar Sharma vs.
State of Assam reported in (1999) 7 SCC 435 and in the case
of Saurav Jain and Another vs. A.B.P. Design and Another
reported in (2022)18 SCC 633, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that a party can raise arguments against the findings
without having to file cross-objection, in the appeal. Further, as
per the Aadhaar Card of the deceased at Exhibit 34, the learned
Tribunal has considered 18 years of age at the time of accident
and no the basis of which further considered future prospective
income as 40% and multiplier of 18 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
Page 3 of 6
C/FA/4219/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026
proper.
6) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as
Rs.11,700/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.4,680/- which
comes to Rs.16,380/- and 1/2 amount is required to be
deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased
which comes to Rs.8,190/- and the net amount comes to
Rs.8,190/-. In view of above the amount under the head of
future loss of dependency is required to be reassessed as
Rs.8,190/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.17,69,040/-. Therefore, the
appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.1,56,168/- towards future loss of dependency.
7) 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).
8) 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
Page 4 of 6
C/FA/4219/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026
Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of
above judgments the appellants – original claimants being
parents of the deceased they are entitled for Rs.48,400/- each
towards the filial 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/- towards loss of consortium.
9) As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are
entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of Rs.16,12,872/- Rs.17,69,040/-
dependency including additional
amount of Rs.1,56,168/-
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.16,89,872/- Rs.19,02,140/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.2,12,268/-
10) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.16,89,872/-, however, as discussed above
the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.2,12,268/- (Rs.19,02,140/- - Rs.16,89,872/-) with
Page 5 of 6
C/FA/4219/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026
proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
11) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award
dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Kapadwanj, in MAC Petition No.61 of
2023 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the
judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent no.2 –
ST Corporation shall deposit the said additional amount of
Rs.2,12,268/- 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.
12) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
13) 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 09/01/2026 17:40:02
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