Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Bharatbhai Vasava ... vs Ramanbhai Desaibhai Vasava on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/213/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 213 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
RAMESHBHAI BHARATBHAI VASAVA (DELETED) & ANR.
Versus
RAMANBHAI DESAIBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and award dated 08.09.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.237 of 2018, 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 Ms. K. S. Pathak, learned Advocate for Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:55:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/213/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined respondent no.3 - Insurance Company. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 22.05.2018 the minor son of the claimants namely Mehul (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") along with his father i.e. claimant no.1 were going from Mangrol to Amod on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ- 06-HE-5874, at that time opponent no.1 - respondent no.1 herein came driving Eicher Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-16-Z-1691 at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner who lost the control over the steering and dashed the truck with the motorcycle from behind as a result of which the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and came beneath the wheel of the truck and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it on the spot. Therefore, the appellants have filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error while considering the income of the minor deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum which is required to be considered as per the minimum wages and also committed error by not considering future prospect and also not awarded any amount under the head of filial consortium. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal as the Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation.
5) Learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak for the Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the present appeal on the ground that the appeal is restricted up to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and whatever arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:55:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/213/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined appellants to enhance the compensation amount is not sustainable. Further she has submitted that in the case on hand the deceased was only 3 years old minor and in each and every case in absence of any proof of brilliancy or future prospect of minor minimum wages is not required to be considered and hence the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the schedule under the Act and multiplier. She has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Meenadevi Vs Nanu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors., reported in 2022 ACJ 2478; R. K. Malik and another Vs. Kiran Pal and others, reported in (2009) 14 SCC; Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 and Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & Anr. Vs Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr., reported in (2022) 1 SCC 317, also relied upon the judgments of this Court in case of Hareshbhai Bhanushankar Mehta & Anr., vs Mahendrakumar M. Vanzara & Ors., in First Appeal No.2104 of 2023, dated 14.06.2024, and Lalitaben Manubhai Talpada & Anr., Vs Vijaybhai Umedbhai Vaghri & Ors., in First Appeal No.1286 of 2024 dated 02.08.2024, and argued that the appeal is required to be dismissed. Further she has shown her consensus that even the appellant is entitled for compensation then maximum lump-sum amount of Rs.5 lakhs considering notional income and requested to dismiss the appeal.
6) Considering the rival submissions it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- as deceased was aged 5 years old but not considered the future prospect and also not considered filial consortium and only considered the multiplier of 16 and awarded Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:55:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/213/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-. Herein liability is not disputed only quantum is disputed.
7) Having heard both the learned Advocates and perusing the record it appears that the authorities relied by the learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak for the Insurance Company is prior to the year 2003 and 2004, whereas, in the present case the accident took place in the year 2018. Considering the current scenario and prevalent rate of inflation notional income is required to be considered but it is pertinent to note that the second schedule has been deleted w.e.f. 01.09.2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has adopted the yardstick of minimum wages in cases of serious injuries sustained by child for the purpose of determining notional income and future prospects and in this regard reference is required to be made to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413; and Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and Anr, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation
- 2025 INSC 1070, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 15 and 16 reads as under:
"15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's interference, Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:55:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/213/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined applying well-established principles of law.
16. We may also observe that, in general, i.e., accidents involving adults, we are often confronted with situations where the Minimum Wage Data is not readily available and every so often, the question that has been made up to this Court hinges only on the calculation of income. In that view of the matter and in the hope of reducing the claimants need to file appeals to this Court or even the High Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that in cases where the claimant has failed to furnish appropriate details of income or adequate proof thereof, it shall be the responsibility and obligation of the contesting party, more particularly the insurance company to furnish before the Tribunal the applicable minimum wage as duly issued by the concerned government."
8) In view of above the minimum wages of the year 2018 is required to be considered and the authorities relied by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company would not assist in light of the aforesaid pronouncement. Considering the above in the case on hand the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased child at Rs.15,000/- per annum, whereas, as per minimum wages of the year 2018 the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.7,900/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects, however, this Court is of the view that the future prospect is required to be considered as 40%. Further the learned Tribunal has considered that as the deceased was bachelor ½ deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which are just and fair 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] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700. The tribunal has committed error in considering the multiplier of 16 as per the Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:55:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/213/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined age group of parents, however, this Court is of the view that the multiplier of 15 is required to be considered. Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.7,900/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,160/- which comes to to Rs.11,060/- and ½ amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.5,530/- and the net amount comes to Rs.5,530/-. In view of above the amount of compensation is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,530/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,95,400/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.8,35,400/- towards the amount of compensation.
9) Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded total Rs.50,000/-
under the heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate etc., 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. 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, 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, this Court is of the view that as during the pendency of the petition before the learned Tribunal the appellant no.1 expired, the appellant no.1 being father of the deceased minor suffered great shock at the time of accident as the greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime, therefore, the appellants being parents of the deceased minor child are entitled for Rs.48,400/- each as filial consortium. Therefore, the amount under the three conventional heads is reassessed as Rs.1,33,100/-. Therefore, the appellants are Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:55:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/213/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined entitled for additional amount of Rs.83,100/- under the three conventional heads.
10) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Amount of Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.9,95,400/-
compensation including additional
amount of Rs.8,35,400/-
Funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,33,100/-
loss of Estate etc., including additional
amount of Rs.83,100/-
Total compensation Rs.2,10,000/- Rs.11,28,500/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.9,18,500/-
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.9,18,500/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company has argued that the compensation is restricted up to Rs.5 lakhs therefore question does not arise to enhance the compensation. It is needless to say that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families and there is no bar that compensation is restricted up to the claim by the claimant and the High Court and Tribunal have to award the compensation up to that extent. Herein as the appellant is entitled for Rs.11,28,500/- therefore the appeal is restricted up to Rs.5 Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:55:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/213/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined lakhs is not a ground to deny the compensation more that cliamed by the appellant. In this regard reference is required to be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274, wherein, it has been observed that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed.
13) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 08.09.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Bharuch, in MAC Petition No.237 of 2018 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.9,18,500/- 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.
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
15) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:55:51 IST 2025