Gujarat High Court
Geetaben Rameshbhai Vanzara vs Champusing Chenaji Rupani on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 722 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
GEETABEN RAMESHBHAI VANZARA
Versus
CHAMPUSING CHENAJI RUPANI & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C. MEHTA FOR MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and award dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), B. K. District, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.264 of 2014, the appellant - original claimant preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. Vishal C. Mehta for and on behalf of Mr. K. K. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the appellant - original Claimant and Mr. G. C. Mazmudar, learned Advocate for respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record and proceedings. Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:56:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 11.10.2014 the deceased Sanjaybhai Rameshbhai Vanzara (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased")and Jagdishbhai both were going on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-8-Q-0590, towards Samdhi and at that time on Dhuva Road, Near Juna Deesa Canal, the driver of the Jeep bearing Reg. No.GJ-8-D-7437, came driving the same at a very high and excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased from wrong side. As a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Therefore, the appellant has 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 Mr. G. C. Mazmudar for the Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and no interference is required to call for. With these submissions he has requested to dismissed the present appeal.
5) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing quantum by not considering the income of the deceased who was 17 years old at the time of accident and by working as skilled labourer and engaged in a construction site was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and committed error by considering notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has considered notional income as he was at the verge of majority and even otherwise as per the ratio laid down 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 Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:56:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined OnLine SC 3692, and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation - 2025 INSC 1070, as per which the Hon'ble Supreme Court come to the conclusion and clarified that when the Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or 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. Considering the aforesaid fact in the case on hand the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased child at Rs.15,000/- per annum and the Insurance Company is also failed to perform obligation and responsibility as party to point out applicable minimum wages endorsed by the Government. In view of above at the relevant point of time the rate as per minimum wages was Rs.4,800/-, hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.4,800/- 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 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] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, which are just and proper. However, the learned Tribunal has also committed error in considering the multiplier of 15, hence, as per the Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 18 is required to be considered. Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.4,800/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.1,920/- which comes to to Rs.6,720/- and ½ amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,360/- and the net amount comes to Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:56:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined Rs.3,360/-. In view of above the amount under the head of loss of dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.3,360/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,25,760/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.5,68,260/- under the head of future loss of income.
6) Further, the learned Tribunal while relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the three conventional heads, 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 and Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount under the three conventional heads is reassessed as Rs.84,700/-. Therefore, the appellant is are entitled for additional amount of Rs.14,700/- under the three conventional heads.
7) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.1,57,500/- Rs.7,25,760/-
including additional
amount of Rs.5,68,260/-
Loss of Estate & loss Rs.55,000/- Rs.66,550/-
of consortium including additional
amount of Rs.11,550/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Total compensation Rs.2,27,500/- Rs.8,10,460/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.5,82,960/-
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:56:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
8) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.2,27,500/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.5,82,960/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
9) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), B. K. District, Palanpur, in MAC Petition No.264 of 2014 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.5,82,960/- 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 5 of 5
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:56:25 IST 2025