Gujarat High Court
Nikhil Mahendrabhai Bhavsar vs Iqabalsinh Kulsinh Shikh on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/641/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 641 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NIKHIL MAHENDRABHAI BHAVSAR & ORS.
Versus
IQABALSINH KULSINH SHIKH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The Appellants before this Court are the legal heirs of deceased Mahendrabhai and have preferred the present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enchancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 7/2005, whereby, vide judgment and award dated 16.10.2012, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/-.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:10:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/641/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Appellant No. 4 herein, original Claimant No. 4 had expired pending the Claim Petition.
3. Ld. Advocate Mr. Hiren Modi would submit that the Tribunal has committed grave error in not considering the deposition of the witness which was examined before the Tribunal vide Exh. 26 and Exh. 37. That the Claim Tribunal has not considered the amount granted under the head of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium in accordance with law. Lastly, Ld. Advocate relied on the judgment in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo vs United India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2022) 17 Scale 362. That even if the books of account of where the deceased serving was not produced on record, the Tribunal can consider the play slip which proved in accordance with law.
4. Ld. Advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for the Respondent No. 3 herein, would submit that the Tribunal in absence of any proof on record with regard to the income of the deceased has correctly considered the income of deceased at Rs.5,000/-. It is further argued that the amount of loss of estate, funeral expenses as well as consortium granted by the Tribunal is also in accordance with law and hence, no case is made out.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:10:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/641/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
5. Heard Ld. Advocates for the respective parties.
6. Perused the impugned judgment and award dated 16.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal, it is required to be noted that before the Claim Tribunal, the Appellants herein had called Dilipbhai Kanjibhai Thakkar vide Exh. 37 to prove the income of the deceased which was exibited vide Exh. 38 which reflects the amount of Rs. 7,650 per month as income of the deceased. Similarly, Exh. 39 also reflects the amount of Rs.7,650/-, for the Month of May, 2004. It was paid by the owner where deceased was serving.
7. Ld. Advocate for the Appellants have relied on the judgment of the Supreem Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Reported in 2022 INSC 1265, wherein, it is held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation and after relying in the case of Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486 further held that the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:10:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/641/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined which is followed in criminal cases.
8. It is also required to be noted that the factum of deceased working as a Manager with Rajshree Cinema is also not in dispute. Hence, when the deceased expired in the year 2004, the amount of Rs.7500/- claimed by the claimant is just and reasonable considering the nature of work in which the deceased was engaged.
9. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court is in agreement with the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants and having gone through the deposition of Dilipbhai Kanjibhai Thakkar vide Exh. 37 read with Exh. 38 and 39 which reflects, the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,650/-. After deduction of professional taxes and PF, the gross salary of deceased comes to Rs.7,650/- less 40 Rupees which comes to Rs.7610/-. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of Rs.7,610/- per month and considering the ratio in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 30% prospective income is required to be considered out of which, 1/4th as dependency is required to be deducted and considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 14 is just and proper as decided by the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the calculation after considering the loss of estate, funeral expenses and Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:10:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/641/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined consortium qua three of the heirs namely Son, Daughter and wife of the deceased Rs. 48,400/- for each to the dependency would required to be considered and thus, the total amount of Rs. 6,54,948/- is granted as per the following calculation.
Monthly income 7610
30% Prospective + 2283
income
9893
Deduction -1/4 -- 2473
7420/-
Yearly X 12 = 89,040
Multiplier X 14
Total 12,46,560
Consortium + 1,45,200
48400 X 3
Loss of Estate + 18,150
Funeral Charges + 18,150
Total 14,28,060
Already awarded by -- 7,73,112
the Tribunal
Additional Amount Rs.6,54,948
to be paid
10. Since, the Tribunal has considered the interest to be paid at 7.5 % p.a., the same is also just and reasonable. Hence, the enhanced amount will also carry 7.5% p.a Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:10:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/641/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined interest till the date of deposit by the Insurance company.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is partly allowed. The amount of difference to be deposited by the Insurance Company within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of order and on depositing such amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same amount to the Claimants after proper verification. R & P sent back to the concerned Tribunal.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:10:17 IST 2025