Gujarat High Court
Gelabhai Valabhai Parmar vs Devilal Narsinh Rabari on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3055 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GELABHAI VALABHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
DEVILAL NARSINH RABARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 25.04.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Gandhidham Kachchh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.254 of 2000, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,29,000/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal is that on 21.05.2000 at about 06:15 in the morning, the deceased was returning from his work and when he reached at Crossings of Nanda Road, in the meantime, the respondent No.1 came with his truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-V-4352 in rash and negligent manner at a very excessive speed and hit the son of the appellants. The son of the appellants sustained the grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of the appellants that at the time of accident, their son was aged about 20 years and he was earning Rs.5,000/- as a labourer in the company of salt. Therefore, they claimed a total compensation of Rs.7,60,000/-.
3. On being served, the respondent No.3- Insurance Company filed written statement at Exh-18, thereby denying the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh-20:- Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined "1. Whether petitioners prove that deceased sustained injuries and died due to injuries which were received in an accident occurred on date 21.05.2000 by rash and negligence act of the driver of Truck No.GJ-1-V-4352, opponent No.1 during his/their employment with opponent No.2?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled to get compensation from the opponents or any of them? If yes, what amount and from whom?
3. What Award?"
5. In order to prove his claim, the appellants herein led following oral as well as documentary evidences before the learned Tribunal:-
Sr Particulars Exhibit
No.
1. Affidavit in examination-in-chief of 22 Babubhai Rupabhai Harijan
2. Affidavit of Gelabhai Valabhai 27 Parmar 3. F.I.R. 23 4. Panchnama of place of accident 24 5. Post Mortem report 25
6. Insurance Policy of the offending 26 truck 7. SSC certificate of the deceased 30
8. Driving license of the driver of the Mark-45/1 offending truck
6. The respondents have not led any evidence either oral or documentary before the learned Tribunal. Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined
7. Having considered the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,29,000/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimants/appellants herein preferred the captioned appeal on the ground of quantum.
9. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
10. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants/appellants, submitted that at the time of accident the deceased/son of the appellants was gainfully employed in the company of salt and thereby earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. He further submitted that the age of the deceased was 22 years, however, the learned Tribunal has considered the multiplier of 8 in accordance to the age of the parents. He further submitted that considering the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 in place of 8. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined under the head of loss of estate and loss of consortium and a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. He further submitted that the award is required to be modified in accordance to the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 (06) SCC 121, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130. He further submitted that the award is required to be modified to that extent.
11. On the other hand Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. He further submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the record, it is on record that the negligence has not been disputed and also there is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased. The Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined learned Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. The said income has not been challenged by the appellants. The learned Tribunal has also enhanced the income by 50% on account of future prospects of the deceased. In the case of Sarla Varma (Supra), the Apex Court allowed the enhancement of 40% if the deceased is not a Government employee. In the present case, the deceased was working in a salt company, therefore, the notional income is required to be enhanced by 40% in place of 50%. Therefore, after considering the future prospects of the deceased, the notional income is enhanced by 40%. Therefore, the notional income after adding the 40% to the monthly income, the monthly income would come to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000 x 40%). It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was unmarried, therefore, 50% of the monthly income is required to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting 50% of the notional monthly income, the net monthly income for determining the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,100/-. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 22 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18. However, in place of 18 the learned Tribunal has applied the Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined multiplier of 8 in accordance to the age of the parents of the deceased. Thus, in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) and Pranay Shethi (Supra), the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied and accordingly, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,53,600/- (2100 x 12 x 18). The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- under the head of loss of dependency, therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.4,53,600/-.
13. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and loss of consortium. It is on record that the deceased was survived by his parents and both the parents are entitled to get the compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Accordingly, in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (Supra) a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate and a sum of Rs.96,800/- is awarded under the head of loss of consortium to both the parents. The learned Tribunal has also awarded a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. The same is required to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/- in accordance to the ratio of the judgment rendered Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (Supra).
14. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the appellant shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 4,53,600/-
Loss of consortium 96,800/-
Loss of estate 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Total 5,86,700/-
Less: compensation already awarded 2,29,000/-
Enhancement 3,57,700/-
15. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,29,000/- as a total compensation on account of death of the son of the appellants. In view of the above discussions, the said amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,86,700/-. Therefore, the appellants shall be entitled for an additional amount of compensation of Rs.3,57,700/- (Rs.5,86,700/- -(less) Rs.2,29,000/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9%. The said rate of interest is not required to be Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined interfered. Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% on the additional amount of compensation.
16. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal stands allowed partly.
17. The respondent No.3- Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount of compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% within the period of 6 weeks from today.
18. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation to the original claimants after due verification and after deducting the deficit court fee, if any. In case of any original claimants have expired, the amount of their share shall be disbursed to the legal heirs and representatives of the respective claimants.
19. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.
Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined
20. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) CDP Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:08:29 IST 2025