Gujarat High Court
Shardaben Wd/O Vajesing Jorsing Damor vs Subhashbhai Mohanbhai Rathwa on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/177/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 177 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHARDABEN WD/O VAJESING JORSING DAMOR & ORS.
Versus
SUBHASHBHAI MOHANBHAI RATHWA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 04/08/2025
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 10.10.2013 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod in MACP
No.226 of 2008.
2. It is the case of the appellants/original claimants that on
31.01.2008, Vajesing Jorsing Damor and his nephew
Ashwinbhai had gone to Dhanpur for purchase
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/177/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
household kits on TVS Motorcycle and when they were
returning on the motorcycle, Vajesing was driving the
motorcycle slowly and carefully in moderate speed.
Ashwinbhai was a pillion rider. At 16:00 hours, when
they were proceeding to from Dhanpur to Kanjeta Road,
one jeep bearing No. GJ 17 C 6037 being driven by
opponent no.1 rashly and negligently, came from Kanjeta
side. Due to excessive speed, the opponent no.1 lost
control over the steering and it came on wrong side and
dashed with the motorcycle of Vajesing. Hence, Vajesing
and Ashwinbhai both sustained injuries. Vajesing was
admitted in CHC at Dhanpur and during treatment, he
passed away. FIR has been lodged in Dhanpur Police
Station vide Cr. No.08 of 2008. The appellants/original
claimants initially claimed compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-
and subsequently enhanced the claim amount to
Rs.10,50,000/- vide application of enhancement at
exhibit 23 from the opponents with 12% interest and
costs.
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.4,67,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual
realization with proportionate costs. Thus, the Tribunal
has not entertained the claim petition for an amount of
Rs.10,50,000/- lakhs as total compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/177/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
4. This Court vide order dated 23.01.2014 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. Mehul Shah 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
claimants and has failed to appreciate the evidence on
record in its true perspective. It is contended that the
Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the
deceased as Rs.2000/- and 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 Mr. V. C. Thomas appearing for the
respondent no.2- Insurance Company has placed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/177/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
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 and 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 findings of the tribunal on assessing the
income of the deceased is concerned, Shardaben Damor
I.e, wife of the deceased submitted on oath that the
deceased was an expert worker of carpentry work and
was earning Rs.200/- as income. No proof regarding the
same has been given on record. However, the tribunal
has erred in assessing the income of the skilled worker
at Rs.2000/- per month. Considering the prevailing
minimum wages at the time of the accident and the
nature of work in which the deceased was involved, the
monthly income of the deceased is to be considered as
Rs.2800/- per month for the calculation of future loss.
10. Sofar as future prospect is concerned, the tribunal has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/177/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
given 30% rise in the future income. 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 35 years, as accepted by the Tribunal
by considering the evidence on record and noticing the
fact that deceased was doing carpentry work, 40%
amount can be considered towards the future prospects
of the deceased. Considering the fact that the deceased
was survived by widow and three children, mother and
father, as per the ration 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, 1/4th deduction has been 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.2800/- * 40% =
Rs.3920/-. After 1/4th deduction towards personal
expense of the deceased, the calculation of the income
the deceased is Rs.2940/-(Rs.3920/- - Rs.980/- (1/4th
deduction towards personal expenses).
11. Noticing the fact that the deceased was aged 35 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, the Tribunal has
rightly applied multiplier of 16 in the facts of the case.
Thus, the future loss benefit is determined as Rs.2940/-
*12*16 (Multiplier) which comes to Rs.5,64,480/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/177/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
12. 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
under the head of loss of consortium to the tune of
Rs.2,90,400/- (Rs.48,400/- X 6). 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.
13. Therefore, original claimants - appellants herein are
entitled to enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
Compensation As per award As awarded by this
under Court (Rs.)
challenge (Rs.)
Actual salary/ 2000/- 2800/-
income
(monthly)
Prospective 30%(2675) 40% (3920)
income
Deduction of 1/3 1/4(Rs.3920-
amount spent 980=2940)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/177/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
by the deceased
on himself
Future Loss Rs.3,42,400/- 2940*12*16
= Rs.5,64,480/-
For loss of 2,90,400/- (48,400/- X
Rs.100000/-
consortium 6)
Loss of Estate - 18,150/-
Funeral Rs.25,000/- 18,150/-
expenses and
transportation
Total Rs.4,67,400/- Rs.8,91,180/-
Compensation
Enhanced - Rs.4,23,780/-
compensation
14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and
award dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod in MACP No.226 of 2008
hereby modified. The appellants- original claimant are
held entitled to compensation of an amount of
Rs.8,91,180/-. Since by impugned judgment and award
the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,67,400/-,
the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,23,780/-
(Rs.8,91,180/- - Rs.4,67,400/-) with interest at the
rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till
its actual realization. The respondents - original
opponents are held jointly and severally liable to pay
such enhanced amount of compensation with
proportionate costs and interest.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/177/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. R&P be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if
received.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
