Gujarat High Court
Madinaben Sikandarbhai Malek vs Altaf Hussain Muhammadmiya Sheikh on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3246 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
MADINABEN SIKANDARBHAI MALEK & ANR.
Versus
ALTAF HUSSAIN MUHAMMADMIYA SHEIKH & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Nadiad (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.629 of 2022, the appellants - original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for appellants - original Claimants and Mr. H. A. Vyas, learned Advocate for respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 09.07.2022, at around 03:00 Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:43:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025 undefined pm the deceased Sikandarbhai Karimbhai Malek (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") was riding his motorcycle at that time opponent no.1 driver of the Eicher bearing Reg. No.GJ-06-Z-3653, owned by the opponent no.2 coming in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased resultantly leading the occurrence of the accident. The deceased sustained serious injuries and later he succumbed to his 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 has partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has not considered prevailing rate of minimum wages and also not awarded proper amount towards loss of consortium.
5) As challenge is given only qua income and consortium hence the appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass. 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 09.07.2022 and during that time the deceased was doing job in J.K. Malt Products Company and was earning Rs.15,000/- but no evidence is produced on record. Therefore, as per the Government approved rate of minimum wages of the year 2022 is required to be considered, however, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.9,350/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:43:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025 undefined deceased as 53 years and therefore addition towards future prospectus was considered as 10% and having 2 dependents 1/3 deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 11 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] which are just and proper. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,65,380/- towards medical bills which is also just and proper.
6) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.9,350/-
and addition towards future prospect of 10% = Rs.935/- which comes to Rs.10,285/- and 1/3 amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,428/- and the net amount comes to Rs.6,857/-. In view of above, the amount towards future loss of dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.6,857/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.9,05,124/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,79,124/- towards future loss of dependency.
7) 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.1,21,000/- under the three 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 are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1,650/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1,650/- towards funeral expenses).
8) 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, Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:43:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025 undefined 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 awarding only Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the appellants 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 appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.8,800/- towards loss of consortium.
9) As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Further loss of Rs.7,26,000/- Rs.9,05,124/-
income including additional
amount of Rs.1,79,124/-
Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,650/-
Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,650/-
Loss of spousal Rs.44,000/- Rs.48,400/-
consortium including additional
amount of Rs.4,400/-
Loss of parental Rs.44,000/- Rs.48,400/-
consortium including additional
amount of Rs.4,400/-
Medical bills Rs.2,65,380/- Rs.2,65,380/-
Total compensation Rs.11,50,000/- Rs.13,03,604/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.1,91,224/-
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:43:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
10) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.11,50,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,91,224/- (Rs.13,03,604/- - Rs.11,50,000/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad, in MAC Petition No.629 of 2022 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.1,91,224/- 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.
12) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
13) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:43:36 IST 2025