Gujarat High Court
Ranabhai Surabhai Gohil vs Dipakbhai Durgashankarbhai Pandya on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2621 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
RANABHAI SURABHAI GOHIL & ANR.
Versus
DIPAKBHAI DURGASHANKARBHAI PANDYA & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Bhavnagar at Mahuva (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.63 of 2019, the appellants - original claimants have preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:47:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants -
original Claimants and Mr. A. N. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 09.11.2019, the deceased Pradipsinh @ Panchabhai Ranabhai (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") was proceeding towards Vadal from Juna Padar on his motorcycle at that time one Bus bearing Reg. NoGJ-5-AV-3515, owned by opponent no.2 and driven by opponent no.1 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Therefore, the appellants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellants - claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the income of the deceased and also erred in not awarding consortium to each appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent - Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased in absence of evidence of income and properly appreciated the evidence produced Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:47:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined on record and awarded the compensation. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has not considered minimum wages of prevalent time and also not considered consortium to each appellants, hence, the appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass. 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 09.11.2019 and during that time the deceased was doing agriculture, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced as per the rate of minimum wages of the prevalent time and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.8,200/- per month. Further, as the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident on the basis of which the learned Tribunal has considered future prospective income as 40% and as the deceased was unmarried 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 15 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] which are Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:47:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined just and proper.
7) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8,200/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,280/- which comes to Rs.11,480/- and 1/2 amount is required to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.5,740/- and the net amount comes to Rs.5,740/-. In view of above the amount under the head of future loss of income is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,740/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.10,33,200/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.4,03,200/- towards future loss of income.
8) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 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. Therefore, the appellants - original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- 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 Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:47:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the appellants - original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased they are entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.96,800/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 2). Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.56,800/- towards of loss of consortium.
10) As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court Tribunal Future loss of income Rs.6,30,000/- Rs.10,33,200/-
including additional amount of Rs.4,03,200/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.96,800/-
including additional
amount of Rs.56,800/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 2)
Total compensation Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.11,66,300/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.4,66,300/-
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:47:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.7,00,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.4,66,300/- (Rs.11,66,300/- - Rs.7,00,000/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar at Mahuva, in MAC Petition No.63 of 2019 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent no.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.4,66,300/- 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.
14) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:47:04 IST 2026