Gujarat High Court
Minaben Jesingbhai Dhuda vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/385/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 385 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1418 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
MINABEN JESINGBHAI DHUDA & ANR.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
============================================
Appearance:
MR MONAL S CHAGLANI(10240) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS ESHA S. BHAVSAR ON BEHALF OF AISHVARYA(8018) for the
Defendant(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/12/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident against the MAC Petition No.53 of 2019, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and award dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:40:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/385/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined No.53 of 2019, the appellants - original claimants have filed First Appeal No.385 of 2023, and the opponent no.1 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "Corporation / GSRTC" for short) has filed First Appeal No.1418 of 2022, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Chaglani learned Advocate for the appellants - original claimants and learned Advocate Ms. E. S. Bhavsar on behalf of Aishvarya for respondent - Corporation. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 24.02.2019 one Mayurbhai Jesinghbhai Dhuda along with his sister Sejalben (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") and niece Bhavnaben were proceeding on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ- 11-DF-8942, from Magharvada to Keshod and when they reached on Keshod Junagadh Highway at about 03:00 O'clock one ST Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-Y-8693, came from the opposite side driving the bus in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle driven by the Mayurbhai. As a result of which Mayurbhai and Sejalben sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to it, whereas, Bhavnaben sustained injuries. Therefore, the appellants being legal heirs of the deceased had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:40:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/385/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined
4) Learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Chaglani, for the original claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence and committed error in considering notional income of non earning person. Admittedly the learned Tribunal ought to have considered prevailing rate of minimum wages as the deceased was helping her parents and she was aged 17 years and 10 months old and therefore rate of minimum wages of the year 2019 is required to be considered. Further, the learned Tribunal has also committed error in not awarding any consortium to the appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow the present First Appeal No.385 of 2023.
5) Per contra the learned Advocate Ms. E. S. Bhavsar, for the GSRTC in support of First Appeal No.1418 of 2022 and in oppose of the First Appeal No.385 of 2022, has submitted that the deceased Mayurbhai along with deceased sister Sejalben and niece were riding on the motorcycle driven by him in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the ST Bus and due to this reason the motorcyclist Mayurbhai and Sejalben succumbed to the injuries sustained by them and Bhavnaben sustained injuries. Hence, motorcyclist was negligent and to prove the said fact the driver of the bus is examined and it is proved that the motorcyclist was negligent and contributory negligence on the part of motorcyclist is required to be considered. The learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate the liability and contributory negligence on the part of motorcyclist and committed error in holding the bus driver sole negligent for occurrence of the accident. Hence, she has requested to allow the First Appeal No.1418 of 2022.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:40:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/385/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined
6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence. The claimant has tendered the affidavit wherein all the facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the claim petition and relied on the FIR at Exhibit 34, panchnama at Exhibit 35. Perusing the said evidence it appears that the ST Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-Y-8693 was in the middle of the road and motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-11-BF- 8942, was lying at the place of accident and front portion of the motorcycle was totally damaged. To prove the contributory negligence the driver of the offending bus was examined below Exhibit 65, wherein, he has stated that one handcart of watermelon was going on his side and he drove the bus on the side of motorcycle and due to this reason the motorcycle collided against the bus and alleged accident was occurred. It appears that the driver of bus drove the bus towards motorcycle side and evidence and even the charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the bus and considering the bus being heavy vehicle comparing to the motorcycle it is the duty of the driver of heavy vehicle to avoid head on collision. Therefore, the driver of the bus is sole negligent in occurrence of the accident.
7) Learned Advocate for the Corporation has mainly argued to held the motorcyclist negligent for causing the accident by fixing contributory negligence. It is needless to say that so far minor is concerned she was a pillion rider and in case of pillion rider for Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:40:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/385/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined her the case is of composite negligence and not of contributory negligent and in the case of composite negligent the claimant has right to recover the amount of compensation from any of the tortfeasor who is involved in the accident and in case of contributory negligent as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273, question does not arise to held contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the GSRTC are not acceptable.
8) Now coming back to the First Appeal No.385 of 2023, to prove the age of the deceased the claimants have produced the Aadhaar Card at Exhibit 49, wherein, the DOB of the deceased is mentioned as 18.04.2021 and the date of accident is 24.02.2019, therefore, the deceased was admittedly minor having 17 years of age. She was studying in 2 nd year of B.Com and was helping her parents and running beauty parlour and earning Rs.10,000/- but no evidence is produced and hence the learned Tribunal has considered Rs.15,000/- as notional income of the deceased.
9) Learned Advocate for the Corporation has supported the said finding and submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi Vs Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, reported in (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 204, and judgment of this Court in the case between Munafbhai Ibrahimbhai Chauhan & Anr., Vs Abjalali Habibbhai Kureshi & Ors., in First Appeal No.787 of 2023, oral order dated 06.01.2025, the learned Tribunal Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:40:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/385/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined has not committed error in considering notional income, hence, requested to dismiss the appeal. It is needless to say that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and Anr, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation
- 2025 INSC 1070, as per which the Hon'ble Supreme Court come to the conclusion and clarified that when the Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. Considering the aforesaid fact in the case on hand the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased child at Rs.15,000/- per annum, however, in view of above as per minimum wages rate of the unskilled labour in the year 2019, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.8,100/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has committed error in not considering future prospective income of the deceased, however, this Court is of the view that 40% addition towards future prospectus is required to be awarded. Further as the deceased was minor bachelor ½ 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] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, which are just and proper.
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:40:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/385/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined
10) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8,100/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,240/- which comes to to Rs.11,340/- and 1/2 amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.5,670/-
and the net amount comes to Rs.5,670/-. In view of above the amount under the head of future loss of income is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,670/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.12,24,720/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.10,89,720/- under the head of future loss of income.
11) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 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, 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).
12) 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 to the claimants, however, in view of above judgments the appellants -
original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:40:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/385/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Rs.48,400/- each towards the loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is assessed as Rs.96,800/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 2). Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.96,800/- towards loss of consortium.
13) As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of future income Rs.1,35,000/- Rs.12,24,720/-
including additional amount of
Rs.10,89,720/-
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 NIL Rs.96,800/-
including additional amount of
Rs.96,800/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 2)
Total compensation Rs.1,65,000/- Rs.13,57,820/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.11,92,820/-
14) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.1,65,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.11,92,820/-
(Rs.13,57,820/- - Rs.1,65,000/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
15) In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274, wherein, it has been Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:40:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/385/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined observed that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed.
16) Hence, the First Appeal No.385 of 2023 is allowed with no order as to costs and the First Appeal No.1418 of 2022 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment and award dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh, in MAC Petition No.53 of 2019 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent - GSRTC shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.11,92,820/- 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.
17) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
18) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:40:47 IST 2025