GOPALBHAI VISABHAI THAKOR FATHER OF DECDversusMAHAVIR GURJAR

      C/FA/844/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 844 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
            Approved for Reporting                  Yes           No

==========================================================
         GOPALBHAI VISABHAI THAKOR FATHER OF DECD & ORS.
                              Versus
                      MAHAVIR GURJAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 16/02/2026

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

(1)     Feeling aggrieved by and dissatis ed with the judgment and award
        dated 06.12.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
        (Main), Patan, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in
        Motor Accident Claim Petition No.23/2022, the appellants –original
        claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
        Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

(2)     Heard Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the appellants –
        original Claimants and Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned counsel for
        respondent No.2. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1
        and 3.

(3)     It is the case of the claimants that on 01.01.2022, while the deceased
        Maulik was going as pillion rider on the Motorcycle bearing No.GJ-24-
        Q-9833 from Varahi to Kandla Highway road, at that time, one Truck
        Trailor bearing No.RJ-01-GC-4765 came with full speed and in rash


                                    Page 1 of 5
      C/FA/844/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




        and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from
        behind. As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and succumbed
        to it. Therefore, the claim petition was led by the legal heir of the
        deceased to get compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the opponents.
        After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned
        Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- along with cost and
        interest @ 9% p.a.

(4)     The appeal is led on limited ground of quantum and no further issue
        qua liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Therefore,
        learned counsel for the claimants has mainly argued that, the
        Tribunal has erred in considering monthly income of the deceased as
        Rs.6,000/- on notional basis as he was doing labour work and earning
        Rs.15,000/- p.m. He has submitted that, the Tribunal ought to have
        considered minimum wage prevailing at the time of accident which
        was subsequently amended to Rs.11600/-. Therefore, he prays that at
        least, Rs.10,000/- income p.m. is required to be assessed. Further, the
        Tribunal has also erred in not awarding adequate compensation
        under other conventional heads. Hence, he has prayed to allow the
        appeal as prayed for.

(5)     Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company has
        opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has
        rightly awarded compensation in absence of any evidence of income
        and adequate compensation is awarded under the head of loss of
        consortium. Therefore, requested to dismiss the appeal.

(6)     Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
        parties, it appears that the appeal is    led only on the aspect of
        quantum and liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has
        not     led any cross-objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be
        decided on the aspect of quantum only. Alleged incident is not not in
        dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to


                                    Page 2 of 5
      C/FA/844/2024                                JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




        prove the claim, the claimant No.1 has led an AAdavit at Exh:23, FIR
        at Exh:25, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh:26, Inquest
        Panchanama at Exh:27, PM report at Exh:28 and school leaving
        certi cate at Exh:35. After appreciating the evidence produced on
        record, the Tribunal held the oEending vehicle sole negligent relying
        on the decisions of the Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC reported in AIR 2009
        SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011
        (11) SCC 635. Further, the age of the deceased is 17 years as per the
        school leaving certi cate at Exh:35.

(7)     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 in the year January, 2022 and during that time, the
        deceased was doing agriculture labour work and as per the minimum
        wages, the minimum income of unskilled person is required to be
        considered as Rs.9,050/-. Hence, the income of the deceased is
        reassessed as Rs.9,050/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has rightly
        considered future prospective income of the deceased as 40 %, which
        is proper. As the deceased was unmarried, 1/2 deduction as personal
        expenditure and living 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.

(8)     Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.9,050/- and
        future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,620/- which comes to Rs.12,670/- and
        1/2nd amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure
        and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.6,335/- and the net
        amount comes to Rs.6,335/-. In view of above, the amount under the



                                    Page 3 of 5
       C/FA/844/2024                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




         head of loss of future dependency is required to be reassessed as
         Rs.6,335/- x 12 months x 18 multiplier = Rs.13,68,360/-. Therefore,
         the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.4,61,160/-
         under the head of future loss of dependency.

(9)      Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National
         Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16)
         SCC 680 has awarded total Rs.30,000/- under the two conventional
         heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to
         be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-
         towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants – original
         claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6300/- (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).

(10)     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 Tribunal has committed
         error in not awarding loss of consortium. However, in view of above
         judgments, the appellants are entitled for loss of consortium.
         Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as
         Rs.96,800/- for parents of the deceased.

(11)     As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled to
         get compensation computed as under:-
                           Heads               Awarded by the        Reassessed by
                                                    Tribunal             this Court
                  Future loss of dependency        9,07,200/-           13,68,360/-
                  Loss of Estate                    15,000/-              18,150/-
                  Funeral expenses                  15,000/-              18,150/-
                  Loss of consortium               Not given              96,800/-
                  Total compensation               9,37,200/-           15,01,460/-


                                     Page 4 of 5
       C/FA/844/2024                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




(12)     As Rs.9,37,200/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
         appellants – original claimant is entitled to get additional amount of
         Rs.5,64,260/- (Rs.15,01,460 - Rs.9,37,200/-) with proportionate costs
         and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

(13)     Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
         dated 06.12.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
         (Main), Patan, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.23/2022 stands
         modi ed to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award
         remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.2 shall deposit
         such additional amount of Rs.5,64,260/- 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.

(14)     The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the de cit court fees on
         enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
         Award to be drawn accordingly.




                                                                      (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)


         SUCHIT


  Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
  Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/02/2026 11:31:21




                                                Page 5 of 5