Gujarat High Court
Sangeetaben Subhashbhai Mudliyar vs Natubhai Sonyabhai Chaudhry on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/94/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 94 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SANGEETABEN SUBHASHBHAI MUDLIYAR & ORS.
Versus
NATUBHAI SONYABHAI CHAUDHRY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 22/09/2025
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 17.06.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Navsari in MACP No.201 of 2009.
2. The facts of the case are that on 21.04.2008, the deceased Subhashbhai was going from Navsari to Vadodara by driving the car bearing registration GJ-15- DD-5782. The deceased was driving the said car in a moderate speed cautiously and keeping in mind the rules of traffic on the left side of the road. At the time when Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/94/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined the deceased was proceeding on the road leading from Zankhvav Valia towards Ankleshwar GIDC and when he reached near the place of accident, the Opponent No 1 came there from opposite direction driving his tanker bearing registration No GJ-12-U-9395 in an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the car driven by the deceased. As a result of which the deceased Subhashbhai Premmadhav Mudaliyar sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the original claimants have filed the aforesaid claim petition for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opponents.
3. Vide the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly 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.96,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate costs.
4. This Court vide order dated 17.01.2014 noticing the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants and the grounds raised in the appeal, has admitted the appeal.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. Hiren Modi appearing for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment and award, has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding inadequate compensation to the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/94/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined claimants and has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective. It is contended that the tribunal committed an error while holding thedeceased 50% negligent for the accident on the ground that the car of thedeceased was loaded with liquir bottles and erred in presuing that due to apprehension of police trap, the deceased was driving his car in excessive speed. The said conclusion fo the tribunal is totally on presumption bases, and hence, liable to be rejected. It is further contended that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.15,000/- per annum only and has not considered the evidence on record and rate of minimum wages for the said time period. It is further argued that the tribunal has overlooked the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the assessment of future prospects, dependency, and grant of compensation under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.
6. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager and unrealistic amount under various heads without considering the financial dependency of the family members and the socio-economic background of the deceased/injured. The learned counsel has urged that the compensation awarded is not just, fair, and reasonable, and is liable to be enhanced in accordance with the settled legal principles.
7. Learned advocate Ms. Mousami Nanavati, appearing on Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/94/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined behalf of learned Counsel Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal and vehemently argued that the compensation must be awarded as just, proper and reasonable and not higher side. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal, after appreciating the materials available on record, awarded the compensation under each head is just, proper and reasonable and not required to interfere and lastly prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties on the disputes between the parties in narrow compass and perused the record and proceedings and impugned judgment and award, more particularly, the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while considering the issue of quantum of compensation.
9. As regards the contention raised with regard to the issue of negligence is concerned, considering the evidence on record including deposition of wife of the deceased at exh. 43, place of panchnama at exh 36, inquest panchnama and FIR at exh 35, it is evidently clear that the said accident was occurred due to the composite negligence of the both drivers. Hence, the tribunal has rightly assessed the negligency of 50% of the deceased.
10. As regards the findings of the tribunal on assessing the income of the deceased is concerned, the claimant no.1 i.e., the wife of the deceased, submitted in her oral Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/94/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month by working as a driver. However, there is no evidence has been produced to that effect by the claimants. The tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The claimants have produced the School Leaving Certificate vide exhibit 42, as per the said certificate, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 31 years. Noticing the age of the deceased at the time of the accident and that he was working as a driver, the income assessed by the tribunal seems slightly on a lower side. Hence, the contention raised against the enhancement of income by the insurance company is required to be rejected. Considering the minimum wages for the said period, it would be fair to enhance the income of the deceased to Rs.3,790/- per month as against income considered by tribunal Rs.15,000/- per annum. Hence, the income of the deceased is required to be considered Rs.3790/- for the purpose of computation of compensation.
11. Sofar as future prospect is concerned, the tribunal has not given any future prospect. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 noticing the age of the deceased as 31 years, as accepted by the Tribunal by considering the evidence on record, 40% amount can be considered towards the future prospects of the deceased. Considering the fact that the deceased was Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/94/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined survived by widow and two children, as per the ratio laid down in the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 1/3rd deduction is required to be applied towards spend by the deceased on himself. Thus, the calculation of the prospective income of the deceased at the rate of 40% is considered as Rs.3790/- * 40% (Rs.1516) = Rs.5306/-. After 1/3th deduction towards personal expense of the deceased, the calculation of the income the deceased is Rs.3538/-(Rs.5306/- - Rs.1768/- (1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses).
12. Noticing the fact that the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of accident, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (supra) and the scheduled prescribed, multiplier of 16 is required to be applied in the facts of the case. Thus, the future loss benefit is determined as Rs.3538/-*12*16 (Multiplier) which comes to Rs.6,79,296/-.
13. This brings me to the issue of loss of consortium as prayed for by the learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants. As rightly prayed for by the learned advocate for the appellant in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhur Ram & Ors reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, the claimants would be entitled to enhance amount of compensation Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/94/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined under the head of loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- X 3). Lastly, the amount to be awarded under the conventional heads, more particularly, funeral expenses and the loss of estate is also required to be reconsidered in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The same is to be considered as Rs.18,150/- respectively.
14. Therefore, original claimants - appellants herein are entitled to enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
Compensation As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Actual salary/ income 3790/- (monthly) Prospective income 40% (Total: 5306) Deduction of amount 1/3(Rs.5306-1768=3538) spent by the deceased on himself Multiplier 16 Future Loss 3538*12*16 = Rs.6,79,296/-
For loss of consortium 1,45,200/- (48,400/- X 3)
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Funeral expenses and 18,150/-
transportation
Total Compensation Rs.8,60,796/-
Negligence 50% Rs.4,30,398/-
Enhanced compensation Rs.3,34,400/- (Rounded off)
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award dated 17.06.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/94/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Claims Tribunal (Main), Navsari in MACP No.201 of 2009 hereby modified. The appellants- original claimant are held entitled to compensation of an amount of Rs.4,30,398/-. Since by impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.96,000/-, the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,34,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization on the enhanced amount. The respondents - original opponents are held jointly and severally liable to pay such enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest.
16. 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 claimant, after due verification as per the original judgment and award.
17. 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.
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:40:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/94/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
18. R&P be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if received.
(D. M. VYAS, J) Anuj Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:40:51 IST 2025