Gujarat High Court
Lakhiben Gordhanbhai Vasava vs Mohammadsarif Fakirmohammad Mansuri on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1043/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1043 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LAKHIBEN GORDHANBHAI VASAVA & ANR.
Versus
MOHAMMADSARIF FAKIRMOHAMMAD MANSURI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,5
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.08.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & Additional District Judge, Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 1669 of 2002, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,82,400/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Four Hundred Only) as a compensation along Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:51:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1043/2016 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 realization .
2. The facts and negligence are not in dispute. The same are not narrated herein for the sake of brevity.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years. The learned Tribunal had assessed the notional income at Rs.2200/- per month, but the learned Tribunal had added only 30% to the monthly income on account of future prospects of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal in place of 30%, 40% of the monthly income ought to have added to the notional monthly income on account of future prospects of the deceased in accordance to the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 AIR (SC) 3104 & National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680 . He further submitted that though at the time of accident, the deceased was married and he left behind his wife and minor son, however, the learned Tribunal has deducted ½ of the income in place of 1/3 of the income of deceased on account of personal expenses. He further submitted that though the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased at Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:51:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1043/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined the time of accident as 32 years, however, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 in place of 16. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a megre amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and transportation. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is to be modified to that extent.
5. On the other hand, Mr. H.G.Majmudar, learned advocate for the Insurance Company vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it emerges that the aspects of negligence, age, dependency etc. are not in dispute. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.2200/- per month at the time of accident from mason work. The learned Tribunal has also added 30% of the monthly income to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 40% in place of 30% of the monthly income on account of future prospects of the deceased. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the future prospects of the deceased.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:51:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1043/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Accordingly, 40% of the monthly income is added to the monthly income of the deceased on account of the future prospects. Thus, after adding 40% of the monthly income to the monthly income of the deceased, the total monthly income would come to Rs.3080/- (Rs.2200/- + Rs.880/-). It is on record that the deceased was left behind by his wife and minor son, however, the learned Tribunal has deducted ½ of the income on account of personal expenses of the deceased in place of 1/3 in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) & Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, after deducting 1/3 on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly income for the purpose of calculating the future loss of dependency, would come to Rs.2053/-. It is on record that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years. Therefore, after applying the multiplier of 16, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,94,176/- i.e. (Rs.2053 x12x16).
7. It is on record that the deceased was left behind his wife and a minor child, however, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the loss of consortium. Thus, sum of Rs.96,800/- i.e. (Rs.48,400x2) is awarded under the head of consortium. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and transportation. Therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.18,150/- and similarly, the compensation awarded under the loss of estate is reduced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.18,150/-.
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:51:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1043/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
8. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for the following compensation under the following heads:-
Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded in
rupees.
1 Future loss of 3,94,176/-
dependency
2 Loss of consortium (+) 96,800/-
3 Loss of estate (+) 18,150/-
4 Funeral expenses (+) 18,150/-
Total Compensation (=) Rs. 5,27,276/-
Compensation awarded by
impugned Judgment and (-) Rs. 2,82,400/-
Award
Enhanced amount of (=) Rs. 2,44,876/-
compensation
9. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the
claimant/appellant shall be entitled for an additional
compensation of Rs.2,44,876/- i.e. (Rs.5,27,276 -
Rs.2,82,400). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Therefore, the claimant shall also be entitled for the same rate of interest on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:51:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1043/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
10. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands allowed partly and judgment and award is modified to that extent. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount along with interest, with the concerned learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. Upon depositing the said amount of compensation, learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount of compensation along with interest to the appellant after deducting the deficit of Court fee, if any and after due verification.
11. If any amount is lying deposited in the captioned appeal with the Registry of this court, be transmitted to the concerned learned Tribunal. Records & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal. No order as to costs.
12. Pending application, if any stands disposed of.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) GIRISH Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 22:51:37 IST 2025