Gujarat High Court
Karshansinh @ Krishnasing Tagsinh ... vs Gamersing Dhansing Through ... on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/900/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 900 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
KARSHANSINH @ KRISHNASING TAGSINH RATHOD & ANR.
Versus
GAMERSING DHANSING THROUGH NAKHATSINGH TAGSINGH RATHOD
& ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.09.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bhachau-Kutch (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.203 of 2020, 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. A. N. Shah, learned Advocate for Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:17:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/900/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 13.04.2013 son of the appellants namely Ajitsinh Karsansinh @ Krushnasing Rathod (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") was present at the site of Narmada Canal at Fatehgadh at around 12:00 noon, the respondent no.1 herein came driving Dumper bearing Reg. No.GJ-12-AU-6266, in rash and negligent manner and deceased being hit by the Dumper due to which deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to his injuries. 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) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has not considered minimum wages of prevalent time and also not considered consortium to each appellants due to which loss is suffered by the appellants.
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 13.04.2013 and during that time the deceased was working as Supervisor at site of Narmada Canal and as per the Government approved minimum wages the rate was Rs.5,400/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced and Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:17:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/900/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.5,400/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has considered future prospective income as 40% and as the deceased was 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] which are just and proper.
6) Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.5,400/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.2,160/- which comes to to Rs.7,560/- and ½ amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,780/- and the net amount comes to Rs.3,780/-. In view of above the amount under the head of loss of dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.3,780/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.8,16,480/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.2,11,680/- under the head of loss of dependency.
Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, this Court is of the view that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.48,400/- each towards filial consortium. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.56,800/- under the head of loss of consortium.
7) As the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.6,74,800/-, however, as discussed above the appellants would be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.2,68,480/- i.e. Rs.2,11,680/- under the head of loss of dependency and Rs.56,800/- under the head of loss of consortium with Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:17:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/900/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025 undefined proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
8) So far the delay of 314 days caused in filing the present appeal is concerned, pursuant to the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in Civil Application No.5814 of 2024, by the co-ordinate bench the appellants are not entitled to claim interest on the said enhanced amount for the period of 314 days.
9) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 30.09.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bhachau - Kutch, in MAC Petition No.203 of 2020 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.2,68,480/- 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.
10) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
11) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:17:30 IST 2025