Gordhanbhai Valiyabhai Rathwa vs Anant Sailendra Rathor

Gujarat High Court

Gordhanbhai Valiyabhai Rathwa vs Anant Sailendra Rathor on 1 December, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/3556/2021                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3556 of 2021


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                      Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                          GORDHANBHAI VALIYABHAI RATHWA & ORS.
                                                         Versus
                                             ANANT SAILENDRA RATHOR & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                       MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                       RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
                       RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

                                                         Date : 01/12/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 01.05.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Panchmahals at Godhra in M.A.C.P. No. 3 of 2018, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.7,89,048/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eighty- Nine Thousand Forty Eight Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined

2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal are summarized as under:-

i. On 04.12.2017, Mr. Kiranbhai Gordhanbhai Rathwa (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), his friend Arvindbhai and Vashrambai was travelling on Motorcycle No. GJ-17-AN-6641. The deceased was driving the said motorcycle with due care at moderate speed on the correct side of the road, by observing traffic rules. When they were passing near Reliance petrol-pump, the respondent No.1 herein came by driving his Swift car bearing Registration No MP-09-CU-4588 at excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner, and dashed with the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling. As a result of the said vehicular accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.

ii. It is also averred in the Claim Petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 18 years and was imparting tuition and also doing agricultural work, thereby earning Rs.13,000/- per month from both these sources of income. On the aforesaid averments, the Original Claimants/appellants herein preferred before Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:54:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.22,50,000/-.

iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein have chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal, however, respondent No.3 herein - Insurance Company filed their Written Statement at Exh.17, thereby denying the averments made in the Claim Petition in toto, and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition. It is also pleaded that the accident occurred owing to the contributory negligence of the deceased.

iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.11:-

i. Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died on account of rashness or negligence in driving on the part of the driver/s of the vehicle/s involved in the accident ?

ii. What amount, if any, the claimants are entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents ?

iii. What Order ?

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined v. In order to prove their case, the original claimants/appellants herein led oral as well as documentary evidence, such as:-

Sr. No. Description of documents Exh. No. 1 Affidavit in examination-in-chief and 14 Cross-examination of Claimant No.1.

vi. The respondents herein have not led any evidence before the learned Tribunal.

vii. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held the respondent no.1 herein- driver of Swift Car 90% negligent for causing the accident and the deceased himself was held negligent for causing the accident to the extent of 10%. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.7,89,048/- (90% amount of total compensation out of total compensation of Rs.8,76,720/-) along Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:54:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation.

viii. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original Claimants/appellants herein have preferred the captioned appeal on the ground of quantum.

3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

4. Mr. Nishit A Bhalodi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal had considered the income of the deceased at very lower side. He further submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was gainfully engaged in imparting tuitions and doing agricultural work, thereby earning Rs.13,000/- per month from both these sources of income. However, the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.4,200/- per month, which is lower than the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. He further submitted that documentary evidence of the income could not be produced on record, therefore, in the absence of evidence to prove the income, the learned Tribunal could have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time to determine the income of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,200/- per month, which is required to be enhanced. He further submitted that though Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:54:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined the deceased was survived by his parents, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the Loss of Consortium. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation under the heads of Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses. He contended that that learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under these conventional heads in accordance with the ratio of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. He further submitted that just compensation be awarded to the original claimants/appellants herein and the impugned judgment and award be modified to that extent.

5. Per contra, Mr. H. G. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation under all the heads. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at the time of the accident as the claimants/appellants herein could not prove the income of the deceased at the time of accident, therefore, there is no infirmity in determining the income of the deceased. He further submitted there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, hence, the instant appeal is devoid of Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:54:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined any merit and contended that the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to be noted that there is no dispute regarding the issue of negligence. The original claimants/appellants herein have challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum.

7. It is the case of the original claimants/appellants herein before the learned Tribunal that their son (deceased) was gainfully engaged in imparting tuitions and doing agricultural work, thereby earning Rs.13,000/- per month from both these sources of income. But the said income of the deceased could not be proved on record before the learned Tribunal by leading any documentary evidence. It is on record that the learned Tribunal had considered the monthly income of the deceased at the time of accident as Rs.4,200/-. In the absence of any proof of income, the learned Tribunal could have considered the minimum wages notified by the State Government of Gujarat for such a skilled worker prevalent at the relevant point of time for assessing the income of the deceased. The accident in question occurred on 04.12.2017. At the time of the vehicular accident, the minimum wages notified by the State Government of Gujarat for such a skilled worker was Rs.8,388/- per month. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of income, the monthly income of the appellant is reassessed as Rs.8,388/- per month.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined

8. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 18 years and 11 months, therefore, the notional monthly income of the deceased is to be enhanced by 40% in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, after adding 40% of the notional income to the monthly income of the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.11,743.2/- (i.e, Rs.8,388/- + 40% of Rs.8,388/- = Rs.11,743.2/-). Thus, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.11,743.2/- per month.

9. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the deceased was not married, therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgments rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104, 50% of the monthly income is required to be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting 50% of the total income on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the net monthly income for calculating the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,872/- (i.e., Rs.11,743.2/- - 50% of Rs.11,7432./- = 5871.6, which is rounded off to Rs.5,872/-).

10. As noted above, the deceased was aged about 18 years and 11 months at the time of accident, therefore, after applying the multiplier of "18", the original claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for a sum of Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:54:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Rs.12,68,352/- (i.e, Rs.5,872/- X 12 X multiplier of "18") under the head of Future Loss of Dependency.

11. It is on record that the instant appeal as well as the Claim Petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, the parents are also entitled for compensation under the head of Loss of Consortium, however, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under this head. Thus, in view of the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)and Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), a sum of Rs.96,800/- (i.e., Rs.48,400 X 2) is awarded under the head of Loss of Consortium.

12. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of Loss of Estate, and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the Funeral Expenses. The said amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra). Thus, after considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses, and a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate.

13. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the original claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Sr. Head Amount in rupees.

No. 1 Future Loss of Dependency. 12,68,352/- 2 Loss of Consortium. (+) 96,800/- 3 Loss of Estate. (+) 18,150/-

4 Funeral Expenses. (+) 18,150/- 5 Total Compensation 14,01,452/- 6 10% deduction towards contributory negligence of the (-) 1,40,145.2/-

deceased himself.

7 Total Compensation 12,61,307 (rounded figure) Compensation awarded by the 8 learned Tribunal vide the 7,89,048/-

impugned judgment and award dated 01.05.2019.

9 Enhanced amount of 4,72,259/-

Compensation

14. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the original claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for an additional compensation to the tune of Rs.4,72,259/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy-Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Nine Only). The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. The said rate of interest is maintained; accordingly, the original claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled to 9% of interest per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3556/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined

15. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent and accordingly, the captioned appeal stands partly allowed.

16. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest within a period of six weeks from today. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the original claimants/appellants herein (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.

17. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.

18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.

(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:54:13 IST 2025