Gujarat High Court
Dungarbhai Nathubhai Sagathiya vs Bhupatbhai Premjibhai Chudasama on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 17/11/2025
Pronounced On : 17/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1276 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DUNGARBHAI NATHUBHAI SAGATHIYA & ORS.
Versus
BHUPATBHAI PREMJIBHAI CHUDASAMA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal arises from judgment and award dated 12th August, 2014 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 528 of 2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Auxiliary), Bhavnagar.
2. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal was pleased to award a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- from all the opponents, jointly and severely together with interest at the Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this Claim petition till claimants along with proportionate cost of the application.
3. As per the claim petition, the deceased, minor Dharmesh Dungarbhai Sagathiya, (hereinafter, "the deceased") was studying at Trapaj in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in 10th standard. He suffered a vehicular accident on 08.07.2006 at 5'o clock in the evening. It appears that when he was out of his hostel, he was run over by a mini luxury bus, which was being driven by Respondent No.1.
4. The challenge to the said judgment and award is only on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Learned advocate Shri Hiren M. Modi appearing for the appellant has stated that irrespective of the manner of award of compensation, a bare perusal on certain reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of this Hon'ble High Court, the compensation liable to be awarded would be Rs. 5,00,000/- as against Rs.2,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. For buttering the said contention, he relied Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined on the judgment in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto reported at (2023) 1 SCC 204 and a subsequent judgment of this Court in R/First Appeal No. 2033/2017, wherein the said judgment of Meena Devi (supra) has been referred to. Relying on Meena Devi (supra), it was submitted that in the said case, compensation payable to minor has been dealt with. It was submitted that in terms of the said judgment, the notional income as prescribed in Schedule-II of M.V. Act has been deemed to be insufficient on account of inflation and accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the notional income as Rs.30,000/- and, thereafter, had proceeded to award compensation in aggregate of Rs.5,00,000/-, taking into account the applicable conventional heads as well. It is noteworthy that there, the age of the child was 12 years. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court also took into account the ratio in judgments of M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151, where too, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded in respect of each school-going student drowned in river, Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined whilst travelling in a vehicle (bus).
6. Similarly, learned advocate submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also pleased to consider its decision in the case of Kishan Gopal versus Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244, in deciding the case of Meena Devi (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for a death of a 10 year old child. The learned Advocate for the appellant further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Meena Devi (supra) had referred to the decision in Nagappa versus Gurudayal Singh reported at (2003) 2 SCC 274, that the Tribunal has power to award an amount exceeding the amount claimed, if such compensation is "just" compensation. Ultimately, a sum of Rs.5,00,000 was also awarded in Meena Devi(supra). The said judgment has also been followed by this Court in First Appeal No.2033/2017. It was thus, urged that the compensation awarded in the impugned judgment and award may be awarded in aggregate of Rs. 5,00,000/- thereby, enhancing the compensation to a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/-, (i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- less Rs.2,52,000/-). It was Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined thus, urged that the petition may be allowed to the aforesaid extent.
7. None has appeared for the Respondents No.1 and 2 though they have been served.
8. Learned advocate Ms. Richa Shah, for Mr. Alkesh N. Shah appearing for Respondent No. 3, submitted that as such the amount as adjudicated by the Tribunal, is fair and just and that therefore, there is no reason for enhancement of the compensation. It was submitted that as such there is no argument against the manner in which the said compensation has been computed. In the circumstances, it was prayed that the said petition may please be rejected.
9. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present matter in terms of hearing hereinafter.
10. The only point of determination that arises in the present appeal is whether the compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, is liable to be enhanced? If so, to what extent?
11. Indeed, the Tribunal, whilst awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,52,000/- has observed that the claimant Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined No. 1 has asserted that the deceased was a bright student and would have taken care of his parents in their old age. The Tribunal, then noticing that the deceased was 15 years old student of Class 10th and was not engaged in any gainful employment, proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 2,52,000/- in toto. The Tribunal also noticed certain judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and thereafter arrived at a Pecuniary Loss of Income to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/-. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards Funeral Expenses. It awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards "Pain, Shock and Suffering", a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards Loss of Estate and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection.
12. It is in such circumstances that this court has perused the judgment in case of Meena Devi (supra) as well as the judgment in First Appeal No. 2033/2017.
13. The relevant paragraph of Meena Devi (supra) is quoted hereinbelow for the ease of reference:-
"........
12. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in place of issuing Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined any guidelines for determination of compensation in case of death of a child, it may be left open to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of M.S. Grewal1 1, 14 school students died due to drowning in a river. This Court noticing that the students were belonging to upper middle class background, however awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
13. Thereafter in Kishan Gopal 2, a child aged about 10 years died in a road accident took place on 19.7.1992, this Court made departure from the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act and accepted the notional income of Rs. 30,000/- in place of Rs. 15,000/- applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs. 15000/- was fixed in IInd Schedule of the M.V. Act. However accepting the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- and as per the age of the parents i. e. 36 years, the loss of dependency was calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs.4,50,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded under conventional heads awarding a total sum of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. ............
15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and as 1 M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151 2 Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala (2014) 1 SCC 244; (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184;(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined Rs.25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari 3in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively.
..............
17. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was observed that under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. ......"
14. The aforesaid ratio applies squarely to the facts of the present case whereto a minor, studying in 10th Standard is the victim of motor vehicle accident. Therefore, applying the ratio in the facts of the present case, this Court is also inclined to enhance the compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- in aggregate. Although, in the facts of the present case, it appears that the present proceedings are not under Section 163A of the M.V. Act but are under Section 166 of the M.V. 3 Kurvan Ansari Vs. Shyam Kishor Murmu, reported at (2022) 1 SCC 317; (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365; (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173 Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined Act. However, considering the overall tenor of the judgment in Meena Devi (supra) as also in the present case, no distinction can be made out and the victim of present accident cannot be awarded lesser amount merely because the proceedings initiated on account of his untimely death before the Tribunal was initiated under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
15. Secondly, as is apparent, the compensation awarded by Hon'ble Supreme Court as also that in the case of First Appeal No.2033/2017 is inclusive of the consortium and under the conventional heads. Thus, no additional amount under conventional heads ought to be granted, over and above, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as indicated in previous portion of this judgment. Considering the overall scenario, as the overall compensation has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation, the enhanced compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case would be Rs. 2,48,000/- (Rs. 5,00,000/- less Rs. 2,52,000/-).
16. The aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual deposit with the Tribunal.
17. The said amount shall be deposited by the Respondent No.3 with the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of availability of signed copy of this judgment. On deposit of the said amount, the entire amount shall be disbursed forthwith, without there being any need of creating further FDRs. The present petition is disposed of as allowed to the aforesaid extent. The Record and Proceedings shall be forthwith remitted back to the Tribunal.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J) RIYA VISHWAKARMA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 01:10:01 IST 2025