Gujarat High Court
Rekhaben Babubhai Vagh vs Vaghabhai Bhikhabhai Vagh on 7 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1257 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
REKHABEN BABUBHAI VAGH & ORS.
Versus
VAGHABHAI BHIKHABHAI VAGH & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 07/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 21.12.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi), Rajula, at Rajula in M.A.C.P No.721 of 2011
(Old M.A.C.P. No.277 of 2009).
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for appellants,
learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati for respondent No.3-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
Insurance Company. Though served, none appeared for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1. On 27.08.2009, deceased-Babubhai Mulibhai Vagh was
travelling as a pillion rider on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing
Registration No.GJ-14-N-3390 which was owned by opponent
No.2. Opponent No.1 was driving said Motorcycle with an
excessive speed in rash and negligent manner and when
motorcyclist reached at the place of accident and suddenly,
because of a pit has come on the road, opponent No.1 lost
control over the said motorcycle and resultantly, deceased-
Babubhai Mulibhai Vagh fell down from the motorcycle and
sustained serious injuries. Ultimately, deceased died due to
accidental injuries sustained in the said accident. FIR was
lodged at Pipavav Marine Police Station being C.R. No-I-60
of 2009 against the opponent No.1. The legal heirs of the
deceased filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.20
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
lakhs against opponents. Notices were served. Opponent
Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed joint Written Statements at
Exhibit-14. Opponent No.3-Insurance Company appeared and
filed Written Statement at Exhibit-20. Issues were framed.
Claimant No.1 i.e. the widow of the deceased filed
examination-in-chief at Exhibit-23 and also examined
witnesses namely Iliyaskhan Hamirnavasi and Dhanjibhai
Nathabhai at Exhibits-27 and 34 respectively. Claimants
produced Appointment Order of deceased, FIR, Panchnama,
P.M. Report, Revenue Records showing agricultural lands
stands in the name of deceased, salary slip of deceased in
support of claim petition. After considering oral as well as
documentary evidence and material placed on record, learned
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the legal
heirs of the deceased by directing opponent Nos.1 and 3 to pay
compensation of Rs.12,49,000/- to the claimants with 9%
interest from the date of claim petition till realization.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, appellants-original claimants have filed
the present First Appeal before this Court for enhancement of
compensation.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that
deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and
was serving in Ultratech Cement Company as a helper in the
laboratory at Kovaya, from which, deceased was getting
monthly salary of Rs.10,465/- per month. It is further
submitted that by way of agricultural activities, deceased was
getting Rs.40,000/- per year in the form of agricultural
income. It is further submitted that oral deposition of
Iliyaskhan Hamirnavasi recorded at Exhibit-27 supports the
case of claimants. So far as the income is concerned,
confirmation order of deceased was produced at Exhibit-28
and salary slips of deceased were also produced vide Exhibits-
31 to 33. As per salary slip Exhibit-31, deceased was getting
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
salary of Rs.10,465/- per month. However, learned Tribunal
has considered Rs.8,400/- as income of deceased from
employment and Rs.600/- per month income from agricultural
activities. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal while
awarding compensation has ignored settled principle of law
and did not consider the future prospective income of the
deceased. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation under the heads of funeral
expenses and loss of estate. It is further submitted that
claimants are five in numbers being widow, three minor child
and the mother of deceased. Compensation under the head
consortium ought to have been awarded as per the settled law.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent No.3-
Insurance Company has supported the impugned judgment
and award and has submitted that though evidence of
witnesses was recorded as well as salary slips were produced
on record, learned Tribunal has interpreted oral as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
documentary evidence in its true sense and has rightly
assessed income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. So
far as multiplier is concerned, it is submitted that looking to
the age of deceased and in view of the settled principle of law,
multiplier of 16 ought to have been considered instead of
multiplier of 17. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal
has erred in deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th amount towards
personal and living expenses.
6. I have considered submissions canvassed by the learned
advocates for the parties and perused record and proceedings.
It appears from the record that as per salary slip Exhibit-31,
total income of deceased was Rs.10,465/-, however, learned
Tribunal has erred in deducting provident fund and other
deductions from the salary, which is not permissible. Amount
of tax is only required to be deducted from the salary of
deceased. Thus, considering the deduction of tax from the
salary, income would come to Rs.10,000/- (Rs.10,161 less
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
Rs.150/- = Rs.10,111/-). Adding 40% as prospective income
in the income of deceased, total income of deceased would
come to Rs.14,000/-. Considering the age of deceased and
number of claimants, multiplier of 16 and deduction 1/4 th
under the personal and living expenses are required to be
considered. The future loss of income of deceased would
come to Rs.20,16,000/- (14,000 less 1/4 th x 12 x 16).
7. From the impugned judgment and award, it also appears
that learned Tribunal has not considered any compensation
under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate, under
which, claimants are entitled to compensation in view of the
settled principle of law.
8. Considering the above facts, claimants are entitled to
following amount of the enhanced compensation;
Sr. Name of the Head Amount in Rs.
1 Future Loss of Income
Income per month Rs.10,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
Prospective Income (40%)
Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/- Rs.14,000/-
1/4th deduction towards
personal expenses
Rs.14,000/- less Rs.3,500/- Rs.10,500/-
Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 16 20,16,6000/-
2 Loss of estate 18,150/-
3 Funeral expenses 18,150/-
4 Loss of consortium
Rs.48,400/- x 5 2,42,000/-
Total 22,94,300/-
Amount awarded by tribunal 12,49,000
Enhanced amount of compensation 10,45,300/-
11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.10,45,300/- with 7.5%
interest per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order.
12. The present First Appeal is partly allowed accordingly.
The judgment and award dated 21.12.2013 passed by learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Rajula, at Rajula in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1257/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2025
undefined
M.A.C.P No.721 of 2011 (Old M.A.C.P. No.277 of 2009) , is
modified to the aforesaid extent.
13. Once the enhanced amount is deposited by the Insurance
Company, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the same in favour
of the claimants through RTGS by following the prevailing
procedure and due identification.
14. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
Courts Fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules / law.
15. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court/Tribunal.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
