Gujarat High Court
Shabirbhai Salehbhai Lakdawala vs Shabbir Gulam Nana on 12 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/335/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 335 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHABIRBHAI SALEHBHAI LAKDAWALA & ANR.
Versus
SHABBIR GULAM NANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 12/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 24.04.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP No.2043/1999, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till 31.12.2000 and thereafter at the rate of 7.5% till its realization.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:40:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/335/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal are that on 23.09.1999 at about 15.30 pm, when the son of the claimants/appellants was going on Motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-17-H-7572 on Lunawada Highway Road and when he reached near village Suva, in the meantime, the respondent no.1/driver of the Truck bearing registration no.GJ-17-T-5961 came by driving his truck in rash and negligent manner, at excessive speed so as to endanger the human life and hit the Motorcycle of the son of the claimants/appellants. Resultantly, the son of the claimants/appellants herein sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to the hospital at Lunawada and thereafter he was referred to the hospital at Godhra. During the shifting from Lunawada to Godhra, the son of the claimants/appellants took his last breath. It is also the case of the appellants/claimants that their son was highly qualified and was doing the wholesale business of medical agency under the name and style of M/s. Sara Distributors and was earning very handsome amount. It is also the case of the appellants/claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years and he was unmarried.
3. Upon being served with the notices of the claim petition, the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein had filed their written statement at Exh.8, thereby denying all the facts narrated in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition. The respondent no.3/insurance company herein had also filed the written statement at Exh.17 and denied the contents of the petition in toto and also prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.18:-
Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:40:09 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/335/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined (1) Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died on account of rashness or negligence in driving on part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?
(2) What amount, if any, the claimant is/are entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?
(3) What order?
5. In order to prove their claims, the claimants/appellants herein have led the following oral as well as documentary evidences:-
Sr. No. Evidences Exhibit No. 1. Affidavit of the claimant 20 2. Policy of offending vehicle 24 3. Complaint 25 4. Panchnama 26 5. P.M. Report 27 6. Licence issued under Drug & Cosmetic Act 28 7. Cancellation of the Permit 29 8. Permit granted in favour of deceased by Forest 30 Corporation 9. Identity Card of the College 31
6. The respondents have not led any evidence in support of their defences.
7. Having considered the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of petition up to 31.12.2000 and thereafter at the rate of 7.5% till its Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:40:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/335/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined realization.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the original claimants/appellants herein challenged the impugned judgment and award on the point of quantum.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
10. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/original claimants vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- but the learned Tribunal has not added 40% of the income on account of the future prospects of the deceased. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was running the wholesale business of medical agency under the name and style of M/s. Sara Distributors and he was earning handsome amount. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross error in not considering the future prospective income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased, be added by 40% on account of prospective income of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier in accordance to the age of the parents, which is against the settled position of law. He submitted that the multiplier has to be applied in accordance to the age of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 28 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 17 in place of 8. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads of consortium and loss of estate. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.4,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore, Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:40:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/335/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined the reasonable compensation is also required to be awarded under these heads. He further submitted that the award is modified to the above extent.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Pinakin B. Raval, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Zubin F. Bharada, learned counsel for respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle, submitted that the vehicle is duly insured, therefore, if any liability comes upon respondent no.1, the insurance company is vicariously liable to satisfy the claim.
12. Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the insurance company also pointed out that the present appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter the appellants/claimants filed the application for restoration of the present appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. The said application was allowed; however, the interest for the period of 343 days is not required to be paid to the claimants/appellants.
13. Having considered the submission of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of negligence is not disputed by the either party. It is also to be noted that the age and occupation have also not been challenged. Even the learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month has also not been disputed. The claimants/appellants have advanced the arguments for enhancement on the ground of prospective Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:40:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/335/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined income and also on the ground that no compensation was paid under the heads of consortium and loss of estate and the meagre amount was awarded under the head of funeral expenses.
14. So far as the income is concerned, the learned Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, however, the learned Tribunal has not added 40% of the monthly income on account of the future prospective income of the deceased. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years and was doing the wholesale business of medical agency under the name and style of M/s. Sara Distributors. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, 40% of the monthly income is required to be added on account of the future prospective income of the deceased. After adding 40% of notional monthly income of Rs.6,000/- to monthly income, the total monthly income would come to Rs.8,400/- i.e. (6,000+6000X40%). Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased after adding 40% on account of the future prospective income of the deceased, the monthly notional income would come to Rs.8,400/- per month.
15. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8 in accordance to the age of the parents of the deceased. In my considered view, the multiplier has to be applied in accordance to the age of the deceased, not in accordance to the age of the claimants/appellants in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in AIR (2009) 6 SC 3104. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years, therefore, a multiplier of 17 is Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:40:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/335/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined required to be applied to calculate the future loss of income. After applying the multiplier of 17, the total future loss of income would come to Rs.17,13,600/- i.e. (8,400X12X17). It is also not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was unmarried, therefore, in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), 1/2 of the total future loss of income is required to be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the net future loss of income would come to Rs.8,56,800/- i.e. (17,13,600 / 1/2).
16. It is to be noted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the heads of consortium and loss of estate. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130, a sum of Rs.96,800/- is awarded under the head of loss of consortium and further a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, which is required to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/- in view of the ratio of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra). The learned Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of expectation of life and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. The insurance company has not filed any appeal to challenge the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under these heads. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under these heads is not required to be interfered. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the following compensation under the following heads:-
Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:40:09 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/335/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Future loss of income 8,56,800/-
2. Loss of consortium to both the parents 96,800/-
3. Loss of estate 18,150/-
4. Funeral expenses 18,150/-
5. Loss of expectation of life 15,000/-
6. Pain, shock and suffering 5,000/-
Total Rs.10,09,900/-
17. The learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, therefore, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled for additional amount of compensation of Rs.4,09,900/- i.e. (10,09,900-
600000), which is rounded off to Rs.4,10,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of petition up to 31.12.2000 and thereafter at the rate of 7.5% per annum till its realization. The said rate of interest is maintained and not required to be interfered. However, the interest for a period of 343 days on account of the delay caused by the original appellant in disposal of the appeal is not required to be paid on additional amount of compensation.
18. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal stands allowed partly and the impugned judgment and award is modified to the above extent. The respondent no.3/insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest within a period of 4 weeks from today. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation to the original claimants/appellants herein after due verification. The statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the registry of this Court, Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:40:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/335/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined the same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. IA, if any pending, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
19. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Nov 15 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 21:40:09 IST 2025