Gujarat High Court
Lalabhai Chelabhai Chauhan vs Virendrasinh Kundansinh Jadav on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2886 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
LALABHAI CHELABHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
VIRENDRASINH KUNDANSINH JADAV & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE 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 judgments and award dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahals at Godhra (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.184 of 2020, the appellant - original claimant preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi learned Advocate for the appellant - Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:53:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined original Claimant and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned Advocate for respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 30.01.2020, the deceased -
Minor Ravindra Lalabhai Chauhan (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") along with others were going on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-M-4884, driven by Lalabhai and minor was sitting in the lap of Sushilaben. When they passing through Rinchrota Village, the opponent no.1 came by driving his Ecco Car bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-BA-7421, from back side in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from behind. Due to which deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the appellant has filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering notional income of the deceased and ought to have considered that the deceased after attaining the age of 14 years would have started working and earning nothing less than prevailing minimum wages of the date of accident. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding consortium to each of the appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:53:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent - Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and no interference is required to call for. With these submissions he has requested to dismissed the present appeal.
6) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing quantum by not considering the income of the deceased who was 4 months old at the time of accident as per minimum wages. The learned Tribunal has considered notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and even otherwise as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and Anr, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation - 2025 INSC 1070, as per which the Hon'ble Supreme Court come to the conclusion and clarified that when the Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. Considering the aforesaid fact in the case on hand the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased child at Rs.15,000/- per annum and the Insurance Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:53:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined Company is also failed to perform obligation and responsibility as party to point out applicable minimum wages endorsed by the Government. In view of above at the relevant point of time the rate as per minimum wages was Rs.8,278.40, hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.8,300/- per month.
7) Moreover, in view of judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the learned Tribunal erred in not considering future prospective income, however, this Court is of the view that 40% addition towards future prospectus is required to be considered. The deceased was aged 4 months at the time of accident and hence the Tribunal has rightly considered multiplier of
18. However, as the deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, ½ deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased is required to be considered to award just and proper compensation.
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8,300/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,320/- which comes to to Rs.11,620/- and ½ amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.5,810/- and the net amount comes to Rs.5,810/-. In view of above the amount under the head of future loss of income is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,810/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.12,54,960/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.9,84,960/- Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:53:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined towards loss of future income.
9) Further, the learned Tribunal while relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.50,000/- 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 and Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount under the three conventional heads is reassessed as Rs.84,700/-. Therefore, the appellant is are entitled for additional amount of Rs.34,700/- under the three conventional heads.
10) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court Tribunal Loss of future income Rs.1,57,500/- Rs.12,54,960/-
including additional amount of Rs.9,84,960/-
Loss of Estate Rs.50,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium Rs.48,400/-
including additional
amount of Rs.28,400/-
Total compensation Rs.3,20,000/- Rs.13,39,660/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.10,19,660/-
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:53:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.3,20,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.10,19,660/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274, has observed that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant and in an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the amount of compensation more than the claimed amount can be awarded.
13) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra, in MAC Petition No.184 of 2020 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.10,19,660/-
along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:53:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
15) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 22:53:04 IST 2026