JANABEN JORSINGBHAI DAMORversusKESARSINH RUPSINH SOLANKI

      C/FA/5159/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5159 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

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

              Approved for Reporting              Yes          No

==============================================
               JANABEN JORSINGBHAI DAMOR & ORS.
                                Versus
               KESARSINH RUPSINH SOLANKI & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR A R DWIVEDI(11319) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
KAMALKUMAR R SHARMA(9502) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
O I PATHAN(7684) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==============================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 20/01/2026

                               ORAL JUDGMENT


1)      Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award

         dated 17.05.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

         Tribunal (Auxi.), Dahod at Limkheda (which shall hereinafter be

         referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim

         Petition No.1904 of 2017, 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/5159/2023                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




2)     Heard Mr. A. R. Dwivedi, learned Advocate for the appellants –

        original Claimants, Mr. T. B. Karia, learned Advocate for the

        respondent no.2 – Insurance Company and Mr. D. D. Bhatt, learned

        Advocate for the respondent no.4 – Insurance Company. Perused

        the original record and proceedings.


3)     It is the case of the appellants that on 15.10.2016, the deceased

        Jorsingbhai Harsingbhai Damor (who shall hereinafter be referred

        to as “deceased”) along with Jaydip were travelling in the rickshaw

        bearing Reg. No.GJ-31-X-0280, and in the evening while they were

        passing from Borvato Village, at that time the opponent no.1 came

        with the Tanker bearing Reg. No.GJ-09-Z-9295 in rash and

        negligent manner and dashed with the rickshaw in which both the

        deceased were travelling. As a result of which the deceased

        sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it. 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 – original claimants has

        submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in

        assessing income of the deceased by not considering minimum

        wages of prevalent time. He has further submitted that the learned

        Tribunal has grossly erred in not awarding loss of consortium to

        each appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow the present

        appeal.


5)     Learned Advocates for the Insurance Companies have submitted

        that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence

        produced on record and assessed the income of the deceased and

        awarded just and proper compensation to the appellants. Hence,



                                   Page 2 of 6
     C/FA/5159/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




        they have requested to dismiss the present appeal.


6)     As challenge is given only qua income and consortium 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 ample evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the

        present case the accident occurred on 15.10.2016 and during that

        time the deceased was doing masonry work, whereas, the Tribunal

        has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month

        which is required to be enhanced considering the rate of minimum

        wages and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as

        Rs.8,158/- per month. Further, as the deceased was aged 22

        years at the time of accident on the basis of which the learned

        Tribunal has considered future prospective income as 40% and as

        the deceased was having 4 dependents 1/4 deduction towards

        personal and living expenses of the deceased 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 proper.


7)     Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8,158/-

        and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,263/- which comes to

        Rs.11,421/- and 1/4 amount is required to be deducted as personal

        expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.2,855/-

        and the net amount comes to Rs.8,566/-. In view of above the

        amount under the head of loss of dependency is required to be




                                  Page 3 of 6
      C/FA/5159/2023                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




         reassessed as Rs.8,566/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.18,50,256/-. Therefore,

         the    appellants    are   entitled   to   get    additional     amount       of

         Rs.9,43,056/- under the head of 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.70,000/- 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.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,

         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:



                                      Page 4 of 6
      C/FA/5159/2023                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




                    Heads           Awarded by          Reassessed by this Court
                                     Tribunal
            Loss of dependency     Rs.9,07,200/-            Rs.18,50,256/-
                                                          including additional
                                                        amount of Rs.9,43,056/-

               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.9,77,200/-             Rs.21,28,556/-
                                                        including total additional
                                                        amount of Rs.11,51,356/-


11)     In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation

         of Rs.9,77,200/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are

         entitled      to   get   additional        amount     of   Rs.11,51,356/-

         (Rs.21,28,556/- - Rs.9,77,200/-) with proportionate costs and

         interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.


12)     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal

         Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases

         274, has observed that there is no restriction that compensation

         could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant.

         In an appropriate case, it appears from the evidence brought on

         record then the Tribunal / Court can award more compensation

         than claimed.


13)     Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated

         17.05.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

         (Aux.), Dahod at Limkheda, in MAC Petition No.1904 of 2017




                                      Page 5 of 6
       C/FA/5159/2023                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




           stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and

           award remains unaltered. The respondent nos.2 and 4 - Insurance

           Companies             shall        deposit         the       said       additional           amount           of

           Rs.11,51,356/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, as

           per respective ratio decided 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.


14)       The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit

           court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount

           accordingly.


15)       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 21/01/2026 11:22:24




                                                       Page 6 of 6