Gujarat High Court
Chandaben Udesinh Thakor (Solanki) vs Rameshgiri Bachugiri Goswamy on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3259 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHANDABEN UDESINH THAKOR (SOLANKI) & ORS.
Versus
RAMESHGIRI BACHUGIRI GOSWAMY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS MOHINI J BHAVSAR(3071) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal has been preferred by the present appellants - original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, directing against the judgment and award 31.12.2007 passed by the learned M.A.C.T. (Aux.), 3rd Fast Tract Court, Modasa in M.A.C.P. No.1405 of 1996, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the petition and directed the original opponent nos.1 to 3 to pay the amount of Rs.1,87,000/- to the claimants with Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realization.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Hiren M. Modi for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the claim to the tune of Rs.1,87,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. It is submitted that looking to the documentary evidence as well as the other evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.1,200/- per month, in spite of the fact that the deceased was working as a conductor and second driver on the truck bearing registration no. GJ-9-T-6459. 2.1. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not even considered the future prospective income also, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017)16 SCC 680. It is also submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram reported Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined in 2018 SCC 130, the claimants are entitled to parental consortium, which has not been awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is, therefore, submitted that the present appeal is required to be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.V.C. Thomas for the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, has passed the impugned judgment and award and, therefore, the present appeal is required to be dismissed.
4. Considering the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the following point come before this Court for consideration:-
1. Whether the present appellants prove that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is not proper and erroneous and is required to be enhanced or not?Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:14:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
5. Findings of this Court are as under:-
1. Partly allowed.
2. As per the final judgment and award.
6. The short facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that original claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.1405 of 1996 has been preferred by legal heirs of deceased - Udesinh Dhoolsinh Thakor (Solanki) i.e. widow of deceased - Udesinh Dhoolsinh Thakor, two daughters, two sons and parents of the deceased before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Modasa. It is the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that the husband of the original claimant no.1, father of the claimant nos.2 to 5 and son of the claimant no.6 was working as a conductor and second driver of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-9-T-6459 and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-. On 25.11.1996, when he was on duty as a conductor of the said truck, the original respondent no.1 - driver of the truck was driving the said truck in full speed in rash and negligent manner and at about 10:30 p.m., when the truck was passing through Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Kapadwanj road, the respondent no.1 - driver lost control over the steering and the truck turned turtle on the road. As a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Pursuant to that, an F.I.R. came to be lodged by the driver of the truck and subsequently, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the same and awarded sum of Rs.1,87,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realization. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, present appeal has been preferred.
7. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the same has already been decided by the learned Tribunal and the same is not challenged by the other side. So, the learned Tribunal, in the impugned judgment and award, has specifically held the original respondent no.1 - driver of the truck as a sole negligent.
8. Now, so far as the question pertaining to the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined quantum of compensation is concerned, in this regard, both documentary as well as oral evidence have been produced before the learned Tribunal. The driving license of deceased - Udesinh was produced vide Exh.38 and the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the conductor as Rs.1200/- per month but, considering the fact that since the accident took place in the year 1996, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at a very lower side and at that time, Rs.1500/- could easily be assessed as income of the deceased. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the deceased is entitled to be given future prospect income. As per the post-mortem note, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 32 years and, therefore, the deceased is entitled for 40% prospective future income so, the income come around Rs.2100/-. Further, if there are six family members at the time of accident, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Transport Corporation & Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 1/4th of the income is to be deducted, then looking to the age of the deceased of 32 years, multiplier of 16 is required to be applied and as per the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (supra) and in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018)18 SCC 130 as well as another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur, reported in (2021)11 SCC 780, the claimants are entitled to parental consortium to the parents and children and wife towards the loss of consortium. As per the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount under conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% every three years from the date of the said judgment. Therefore, considering this, amount of Rs.48,400/- is required to be awarded towards the loss of funeral consortium and parental consortium to the claimants @ Rs.48,400/- X 6 = Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Rs.2,90,400/- and wife also required to be awarded Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expense. So, considering this, the following calculation can be made.
Particulars Enhancement As per Award
amount
Income 1,500/- 1,200/-
+ Prospective income + 600/- -
@ 40% 2,100/- 1,200/-
(-) Deduction personal 525/- -(1/4) 300/-
expense (multiplier 1/4) _______ ____________
1,575/- 900/-
x 12 months x 12 months
18,900/- 10,800/-
x 16 x 15
3,02,400/- 1,62,000/-
Consortium 2,90,400/- 10,000/-
(48,400x6)
Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Expense Rs.18,150/- Transport -Rs.2000/-
Funeral -Rs.3000/-
Total Rs.6,29,100/- Rs.1,87,000/-
9. Thus, the impugned judgment and award has been modified to the aforesaid extent amount of claim is enhanced to Rs.6,29,100/-, which is required to be awarded to the claimants. As the learned Tribunal has Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:14:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined already awarded amount of Rs.1,87,000/-, the amount of enhancement to the tune of Rs.4,42,100/- be awarded to the present appellants - original claimants @ 7.5% interest from the date of an application.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The enhanced amount of Rs.4,42,100/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of application, be deposited by the respondent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After the said amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the present appellants - original claimants as per the award by A/c.Payee cheque on proper verification.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:14:10 IST 2025