Gujarat High Court
Muktaben Karamshibhai Bhuva vs Bhikhabhai Dhirubhai Makawana ... on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2149/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2149 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
MUKTABEN KARAMSHIBHAI BHUVA & ORS.
Versus
BHIKHABHAI DHIRUBHAI MAKAWANA (DELETED) & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Gondal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.06 of 2014, 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. N.A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants -
original Claimants and Mr. Y.K. Gadhia, learned Advocate for respondent - Insurance Company. The respondent no.2 duly Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 22:01:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2149/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined served with the notice however remained absent. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 23.01.2014, deceased Neetaben Chandubhai Bhuva (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") was travelling as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-05-j-8513, driven by her husband deceased Chandubhai Karamshibhai Bhuva alongwith her children. When they reached near Mota Dadva Village, Gondal at that time the opponent no.1 driver of Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-11-X-9315, came driving his truck from the opposite side at an excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and ultimately dashed with the motorcycle and the accident occurred. As a result of which deceased and her husband sustained grievous injures and both succumbed to their injuries. A complaint was registered against the truck driver. Therefore, the appellants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellants - original claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal ha committed error in considering Rs.2,500/- as notional income of the deceased. The Tribunal has failed to consider her monthly income of Rs.10,000/- as the deceased was working as agriculturist and household work as per minimum wages of prevailing time. Further he has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded consortium to each appellants and relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 22:01:58 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2149/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Ltd., Vs. Smt. Somwati and others, in Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, and requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent - Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal. In absence of proof of income the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and awarded just compensation and hence the present appeal is required to be dismissed.
6) Having heard both the learned Advocates and going through the judgment it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered oral evidence of claimant no.1 Muktaben Karamshibhai Bhuva at Exhibit 16, FIR at Exhibit 19, panchnama at Exhibit 20, copy of Driving License and RC Book of Truck at Exhibits 21 and 22, Insurance Policy of Truck at Exhibit 23, charge-sheet at Exhibit 26 which was filed against the driver of the Truck. The Tribunal has considered evidence and came to the conclusion that involvement of the Truck was proved and point of negligence of driver of the offending vehicle Truck as sole negligent for causing the accident and even the deceased Neetaben was a pillion rider so question does not arise to consider contributory negligence or negligence on her part and said fact is not disputed by the Insurance Company also. Hence, the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and decided the quantum and negligence and the driver of Truck held solely negligent for causing accident. Even the Truck driver did not step in witness box and rebuttted the evidence produced by the claimants.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 22:01:58 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2149/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
7) Now coming to the quantum part, relying on the affidavit the claimant no.1 has stated that the deceased was doing agriculture work and earning Rs.60,000/- per annum and in support she has produced abstract of Village Form no.7/12 and 8-A at Exhibit 28 and no other document is produced to prove monthly income. So far agriculture land is concerned supervisory law is considered but the learned Tribunal has considered income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month. However, 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 23.01.2014 and during that time the deceased was doing agriculture work and as per the Government approved minimum wages the rate was Rs.5,500/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.5,500/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has considered age of the deceased as 38 years at the time of accident and as per which future prospective income as 40% and having 3 dependents 1/3 deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 15 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] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 which are just and proper.
Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 22:01:58 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2149/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.5,500/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.2,200/- which comes to to Rs.7,700/- and 1/3 amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.2,567/- and the net amount comes to Rs.5,133/-. In view of above the amount under the head of loss of future dependency income is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,133/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,23,940/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.5,03,640/- (Rs.9,23,940/- - Rs.4,20,300/-) under the head of future loss of income.
9) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.30,000/- under the two conventional heads and did not award loss of consortium, 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).
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 learned Tribunal has committed error in not awarding loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 22:01:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2149/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined appellant no.1 being mother-in-law of the deceased is not entitled for loss of consortium, whereas, the appellant nos.2 and 3 being minor children of the deceased 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.96,800/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 2). Therefore, the appellant nos.2 and 3 are entitled for additional amount of Rs.96,800/- under the head of loss of consortium.
11) 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 income Rs.10,80,000/- Rs.9,23,940/-
including additional amount of Rs.5,03,640/-
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 Not awarded Rs.96,800/-
including additional
amount of Rs.96,800/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 2) only to
the appellant nos.2 and 3.
Total compensation Rs.4,50,300/- Rs.10,57,040/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.6,06,740/-
12) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.4,50,300/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 22:01:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2149/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Rs.6,06,740/- (Rs.10,57,040/- - Rs.4,50,300/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
13) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gondal, in MAC Petition No.06 of 2014 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.6,06,740/- 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 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
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 22:01:58 IST 2025