Gujarat High Court
Thakorbhai Nanjibhai Vankar (Parmar) vs Bhatuk Nishar Ahmed Mohommad Yusuf on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 539 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
THAKORBHAI NANJIBHAI VANKAR (PARMAR) & ANR.
Versus
BHATUK NISHAR AHMED MOHOMMAD YUSUF & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KARNA H DHOMSE(6684) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 03/09/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Vadodara in MACP No.104 of 2006.
2. Short facts of the claim case are as under: Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:20:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined 2.1. On 23/12/2005, the deceased of the claim petition was riding on Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-6-BD-7469 on the correct side of the road in a very moderate speed. The opponent no.1 was driving the Truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-1863 in a high speed and also in rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road. The driver of the said truck dashed his truck with the motorcycle and thereby caused an accident and knocked down the deceased.
A complaint about the accident was lodged with the Chhotaudepur Police Station vide I-CR No.148 of 2005. 2.2. The present appellants-original claimants therefore filed claim petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents. 2.3. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition preferred by the present appellants-original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding the present appellants-original claimants entitled to an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with simple interest at Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate costs.
3. This Court vide order dated 19/10/2016 noticing the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants and the grounds raised in the appeal, has admitted the appeal.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants-original claimants, while assailing the impugned judgment and award, has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding inadequate compensation to the claimants and has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective. It is contended that the learned tribunal has not appreciated the fact the deceased had a very bright future ahead and would have earned much more amount than what has awarded by the learned Tribunal. is also contended that the Tribunal has overlooked the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the assessment of the amount of compensation in the present case.
Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:20:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined
5. Learned advocate appearing for respondent no.3- Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal, after appreciating the materials available on record, awarded the compensation and hence the same is not required to be interfered and lastly prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties on the issue involved in the matter in narrow compass and perused impugned judgment and award, more particularly, the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while considering the issue of quantum of compensation.
7. In the present case, the deceased was aged 16 years at the time of the accident. The present appellants-claimants are the parents of the deceased.
8. It is required to be noted here that the Apex Court in case of Meena Devi vs. Nanu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto reported in 2022 AIJEL-SC-69946, relying upon several reported decisions cited therein, awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants. While doing Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined so, the Apex Court, from para-12 to para-14 of the said decision, has observed as under:
"12. 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 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 Rs.25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively.
13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs.
1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
"14. 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 Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined 274, it was observed that under the MV 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."
9. On the strength of the above cited judgment of the Apex Court in case of Meena Devi (supra), applying the same principle with grater force, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appellants-claimants deserve similar treatment.
9.1. Accordingly, considering notional earning of Rs.30,000/- including future prospect and applying multiplier of 13 in view of the decision in case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,90,000/- and adding Rs.50,000/- in conventional heads, total amount of compensation would come to Rs.4,40,000/- under all heads which is just, proper and reasonable.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award dated Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined 03/09/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Vadodara in MACP No.104 of 2006 is hereby modified. The appellants-original claimants are held entitled to receive total compensation of an amount of Rs.4,40,000/-.
11. Since by the impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,00,000/-, the said amount shall be deducted from the total compensation now determined. Accordingly, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to receive enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization. The respondents-original opponents are held jointly and severally liable to pay such enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest.
12. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited with the concerned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release and disburse the entire award amount in favour of the original claimants, after due verification as per the original judgment Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined and award.
13. Let, such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal strictly in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard; preferably within a period of two weeks from deposit of such amount. The Tribunal is directed to realize the deficit Court fees before proceeding with the disbursement of the amount.
14. R&P be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if received.
(D. M. VYAS, J) ILA Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:20:42 IST 2025