Gujarat High Court
Lilaben Chimanbhai Rathod vs Akilbhai Sikandarbhai Ghanchi on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4215 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LILABEN CHIMANBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
Versus
AKILBHAI SIKANDARBHAI GHANCHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR Y K GADHIYA, ADVOCATE for Res. No.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.617/2023, the appellant - original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Ms. Pooja Hotchandani, learned Advocate for the appellants -
original Claimants and Mr. Yogi K. Gadhiya, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:22:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 26.04.2023, while the deceased was travelling on Motorcycle bearing No.GJ-07-CL-3397 and when he reached the place of accident, opponent No.1 came with Eicher Tempo bearing registration No.GJ-31-T-5977 in rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and succumbed to the same. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased to get compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,23,600/- along with cost and interest @ 7.5 % p.a.
4) The appeal is filed on limited ground of contributory negligence as the Tribunal has committed error by holding 15 % negligence on the part of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal has also not properly considered the income of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have passed the award for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- in light of the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Ins. Co. Ltd., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396.
5) Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 insurance Company has opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation considering the evidence produced on Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:22:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined record.
6) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the deceased was studying and doing labour work and earning monthly Rs.10,000/-, but without any evidence on record, the Tribunal has considered Rs.5,000/- p.m., which is required to be enhanced. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record, then Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the present case, the accident occurred on 26.04.2023 and during that time, the deceased was working as labourer and as per the Government approved minimum wages, the rate was Rs.11,700/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.11,700/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has not considered future prospective income of the deceased. However, this Court is of the view that, 40 % future prospective income is required to be considered. As the deceased was bachelor, ½ deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 18 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 Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:22:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which are just and proper.
7) Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.11,700/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.4680/- which comes to Rs.16,380/- and 1/2 amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.8,190/- and the net amount comes to Rs.8,190/-. In view of above, the amount under the head of loss of future income is required to be reassessed as Rs.8,190/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.17,69,040/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.12,29,040/- under the head of future loss of income.
8) Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.76,000/- 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. Therefore, the appellants - original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.18,000/- = Rs.150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.18,000/- = Rs.150/- towards funeral expenses).
9) 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., Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:22:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the Tribunal has committed error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. However, in view of above judgments, the appellant Nos.2 and 3 being major brothers are not entitled for loss of consortium. However, appellant No.1 being mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.48,400/- towards the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.48,400/-. Therefore, the appellant No.1 is entitled for additional amount of Rs.8,400/- under the head of loss of consortium. So far as the negligence on the part of the deceased is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has not raised any dispute in this regard.
10) As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under:-
Heads Awarded by the Reassessed by
Tribunal this Court
Future loss of income 5,40,000/- 17,69,040/-
Loss of Estate 18,000/- 18,150/-
Funeral expenses 18,000/- 18,150/-
Loss of Filial consortium to parent 40,000/- 48,400/-
Total compensation 6,16,000/- 18,53,740/-
Deduction under self negligence 92,400/- 2,78,061/-
of the deceased at 15 %
Total compensation after 5,23,600/- 15,75,679/-
deduction of negligence of the
deceased
11) As Rs.5,23,600/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
appellants - original claimants are entitled to get additional amount Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:22:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined of Rs.10,52,079/- (Rs.15,75,679 - Rs.5,23,600/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.617/2023 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit such additional amount of Rs.10,52,079/- 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.
13) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Nov 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 27 21:22:39 IST 2025