High Court of Gujarat
RENUKABEN DWARKADAS PATEL MOTHERversusSHWETANG NARESHKUMAR PATEL
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The High Court modified the Tribunal's award, fixing the deceased's income at Rs.12,500 per month and increasing the total compensation by Rs.5,68,700.
Summary
The appellants, mother and brother of the deceased, appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's monthly income. The Tribunal had taken a lower income figure of Rs.8,500 per month, whereas the appellants submitted salary slips showing a gross salary of Rs.20,194 and a net of Rs.18,338. The High Court held that the evidence was sufficient to fix the deceased's income at Rs.12,500 per month and recalculated future dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium accordingly. Using a multiplier of 17 and a 40% prospective income factor, the Court increased the loss of future income to Rs.17,85,000 and adjusted other heads, resulting in an additional compensation of Rs.5,68,700. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the Tribunal's award while leaving the rest unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased's monthly income for compensation purposes
- Whether the Tribunal erred in calculating loss of future dependency income
- Whether the amounts awarded for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium were appropriate
- Whether the Tribunal's award complies with the principles laid down in relevant Supreme Court judgments
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor accident claimCompensation assessmentIncome determinationLoss of future dependencySection 173Motor Vehicles ActInsurance liabilityLoss of consortiumLoss of estateFuneral expenses
Judgment
C/FA/4934/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4934 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
RENUKABEN DWARKADAS PATEL MOTHER & ANR.
Versus
SHWETANG NARESHKUMAR PATEL & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 09.10.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (which shall hereinafter be referred
to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.253 of 2019, 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 9
C/FA/4934/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak, for the appellants –
original Claimants and learned Advocate Mr. T. B. Karia, for
respondent – Insurance Company. The respondent nos.1 and 2
are duly served but remained absent. Perused the original record
and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 12.05.2019, the deceased
Chirag Dwarkadas Patel (who shall hereinafter be referred to as
“deceased”) was traveling in the car bearing Reg. No.GJ-01-RZ-
1243, possessed and driven by the opponent no.1 and were
going to Water Park, Mehsana from Ahmedabad. The opponent
no.1 was driving the car in rash and negligent manner due to
which the tyre of the car burst. As a result the deceased
sustained severe injuries and succumbed during the treatment
to his injuries on 14.05.2019. 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 despite producing income proof at
Exhibit 32, 31 and 42. He has further submitted that the
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- by way of doing job at L&T
Financial Services but the Tribunal has assessed income of the
Page 2 of 9
C/FA/4934/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
deceased only as Rs.8,500/- per month. 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 has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as he
had left his job from the company and documentary evidence
produced on record was prior to the date of accident and no any
actual proof of income is produced and therefore the Tribunal
has considered his income as per the minimum wages. Hence,
he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) As challenge is given only qua income hence the appeal is
required to be decided in narrow compass. Having heard the
learned Advocates for the respective parties and going through
the record it appears that the appellants have stated in the claim
petition that the deceased was doing job in L&T Financial
Services and he was the sole breadwinner of their family. The
appellants have produced affidavit of claimant no.1 at Exhibit
17, examination – in chief of witness Prakashsinh Chhelsinh
Kabavat at Exhibit 43, complaint at Exhibit 19, panchnama at
Exhibit 20, PM Report at Exhibit 21, chargesheet at Exhibit 22,
Salary Slip at Exhibit 32, Work experience certificate at Exhibit
31, appointment letter at Exhibit 42 and Divorce Deed at Exhibit
39. The witness Prakash Chhelsinh Kabavat has produced
Page 3 of 9
C/FA/4934/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
documents at Exhibit 31 and 32, which shows that the deceased
was working with the company from 10.09.2018 to 22.04.2019,
whereas, the accident was occurred on 12.05.2019. Considering
the time gap the learned Tribunal come to the conclusion that
the accident took place in May 2019 and salary slip at Exhibit 31
is of October 2018 and the learned Tribunal has discarded the
said evidence and considered the minimum wages in absence of
any evidence. However, this Court is of the view that perusing
the record it seems that the degree and potentiality to all the
documents produced at Exhibits, 30 to 32 and 42 are sufficient
for considering proper income based on guesswork to award just
and proper compensation. The witness Prakash Chhelsinh
Kabavat examined at Exhibit 43, wherein, he has clearly stated
that as per the salary slip at Exhibit 32, the gross salary of the
deceased was Rs.20,194/- and after deduction of admissbile tax
and other permissible deduction his net pay was Rs.18,338/-,
hence, this Court is of the view that considering the potentiality
and evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal ought to
have considered income of the deceased as Rs.12,500/- per
month. Therefore, in view of 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), and
Meena Pawaia and Others Vs. Ashraf Ali and Others,
reported in (2021) 17 Supreme Court Cases 148, this Court
Page 4 of 9
C/FA/4934/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
is of the view that the income of the deceased is reassessed as
Rs.12,500/- per month.
7) Further, as the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of
accident on the basis of which the learned Tribunal has
considered future prospective income as 40%. Moreover, the
claimants have produced Divorce Deed of the deceased at
Exhibit 39, dated 21.04.2018 on the basis of which it proved
that the claimant no.1 i.e. mother of the deceased is the sole
dependent, whereas, the claimant no.2 i.e. brother of the
deceased is major and earning person and hence the learned
Tribunal has rightly considered ½ (50%) deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased. Further,
considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 is
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.
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as
Rs.12,500/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.5,000/- which
comes to Rs.17,500/- and 1/2 amount is required to be
deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased
which comes to Rs.8,750/- and the net amount comes to
Page 5 of 9
C/FA/4934/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
Rs.8,750/-. In view of above the amount under the head of
loss of future dependency income is required to be reassessed
as Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.17,85,000/-. Therefore, the
appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.5,61,000/- under the head of loss of future income.
9) So far as the amount of of Rs.1,10,000/- towards medical
expenses, the claimants have produced medical bills at Exhibits
38, 44 and 53 and considering the fact that the deceased was
treated as indoor patient and died on 14.05.2019, the Tribunal
has properly awarded the amount towards medical expenses.
10) 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 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).
11) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu
Page 6 of 9
C/FA/4934/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
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.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of
above judgments the appellant no.1 – original claimant no.1 is
entitled for Rs.48,400/- towards the head of loss of consortium.
Whereas, the appellant no.2 - brother of the deceased is not
entitled for loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards
loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.48,400/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/-
X 1). Therefore, the appellant no.1 is entitled for additional
amount of Rs.4,400/- under the head of loss of consortium.
12) 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 income Rs.12,24,000/- Rs.17,85,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.5,61,000/-
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.48,400/-
including additional
amount of Rs.4,400/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 1)
Page 7 of 9
C/FA/4934/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
Medical Expenses Rs.1,10,000/- Rs.1,10,000/-
Total compensation Rs.14,11,000/- Rs.19,79,700/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.5,68,700/-
13) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.14,11,000/-, however, as discussed above
the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.5,68,700/- (Rs.19,79,700/- - Rs.14,11,000/-) with
proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
14) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and
award dated 09.10.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad, in MAC Petition No.253 of
2019 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.5,68,700/- 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.
15) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
Page 8 of 9
C/FA/4934/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
16) Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.
17) 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 03/03/2026 11:49:34
Page 9 of 9
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