Gujarat High Court
Lh Of Late Hansabhai Galbabhai ... vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/59/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 59 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
LH OF LATE HANSABHAI GALBABHAI (ADIVASI) & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Mr. Vishal C. Mehta, learned advocate on record for the
appellants - original claimants and Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned
advocate who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 -
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'ST Corporation').
[2] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the original
claimants who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/59/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
who had succumbed to the fatal injuries caused due to motor vehicle
accident. The appellants are aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award dated 17.07.2021 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Palanpur, District - Banaskantha in
MACP No.205 of 2019, whereby, the Tribunal has though partly
allowed the claim petition preferred by the present appellants -
original claimants under Section 166 of 'the Act', however, has not
entertained their claim to the tune of Rs.28,00,000/-, as prayed for.
[3] By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has
held the original claimants - appellants herein entitled to an amount
of Rs.15,11,300/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date
of filing of claim petition till its actual realization, with proportionate
costs. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the appellants -
original claimants.
[4] Learned advocate appearing for the appellants, at the outset,
has invited my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal, while deciding the issue of negligency. Referring to the
manner in which the accident was reported, the learned advocate has
invited my attention to the fact that the deceased was driving the
motorcycle in a moderate speed and was on the left side of the road.
When they were heading towards Ambaji, at that time, one S.T.Bus
bearing registration No.GJ-18-Z-1365, of the ownership of respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/59/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
No.1, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and
was coming from the Ambaji side had dashed with the motorcycle of
the deceased. It was further submitted that because of the aforesaid
accident, the deceased who was driving the motorcycle and the pillion
rider had sustained serious fatal injuries and had succumbed to the
injuries. The attention of this Court was invited to the findings and
reasons assigned by the Tribunal in light of the evidence of the ST
Driver who has been examined as witness before the Tribunal at
Exhibit-26.
[4.1] Learned advocate had also drawn my attention to the
panchnama of scene of accident produced on record at Exhibit-16.
While referring to the aforesaid evidence, learned advocate had
submitted that the Tribunal has, upon appreciation of the evidence,
has arrived at a finding that the driver of the ST bus was not driving
the bus in a moderate speed. The aforesaid finding was arrived while
noticing the skidding brake marks as recorded in the panchnama of
the place of the offence. According to learned advocate, having arrived
at such conclusion, the Tribunal ought to have held the driver of the
ST Corporation solely negligent towards the occurrence of the
accident. He has further submitted that the motorcycle driven by the
deceased on moderate speed and the bus being the heavier vehicle
compared to motorcycle, the duty of the driver, more particularly, at
the curvature of the road is more compared to the driver of the small
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/59/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
vehicle as the larger vehicle would cover the more space on the
curvature road. He has therefore submitted that, coupled with the fact
that the ST bus was not driven in a moderate speed, the Tribunal
ought to have held the driver of ST Corporation solely negligent
towards the occurrence of the the accident and has therefore urged
this Court to reconsider the amount of compensation accordingly. As
regards the issue of quantum of compensation is concerned, the
learned advocate has invited my attention to the findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal.
[5] Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned advocate appearing for the ST
Corporation has objected to the aforesaid submissions, more
particularly, the income of the deceased being as determined by the
Tribunal, as regards the submission made by the learned advocate for
the appellants with regard to income of the deceased. She has mainly
relied upon the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal and
has urged this Court that in the facts of the case, in absence of any
documentary evidence being produced on record, no error can be
found with the approach of the Tribunal in determining the income of
the deceased to the tune of Rs.7500/-. Learned advocate had also
objected to the amount of compensation being sought to be enhanced
under the conventional heads are concerned. She however has urged
this Court to pass appropriate order in this regard.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/59/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
[6] Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties in light of the findings and
reasons assigned by the Tribunal and having re-appreciated the
record of the original proceedings, in the opinion of this Court, the
appellants have successfully established their case for enhancement
in light of the settled legal principles of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As
regards the submission made by the learned advocate for the income
being determined on lower-side is concerned, in view of the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. The New
India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683,
wherein the Supreme Court has held that in absence of any
documentary proof of income, the Tribunal / Courts can always seek
guidance of the rate of minimum wages notified by the State
Government as may be prevailing at the time of accident for the
purpose of determining income of the deceased / injured of the motor
vehicle accidents are concerned.
[7] It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was engaged in
labour work by doing masonry work. Upon bare perusal of the
minimum wages rate notified by the State Government for the period
between 01.04.2019 to 30.09.2019 ranges from Rs.8216 (unskilled) to
Rs.8655 (skilled) as on the date of occurrence of the accident, which is
31.05.2019. It would be safe to consider the rates Rs.8560/-, looking
at the nature of vocation of deceased is concerned.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/59/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
[8] Noticing the vocation with which the applicant deceased was
engaged, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions of learned
advocate for the appellants to enhance the amount of income from
Rs.7500/- to Rs.8500/- per month. The findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal as regards future rise in the income, the
deduction towards personal expenses and multiplier are concerned,
the same being in terms of the settled principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, this
Court is inclined to consider the prayer for enhancement of loss of
dependency accordingly. Thus, applying 40% future rise against
income of Rs.8500/-, the same is determined as Rs.11,900/-
(Rs.8500+ Rs.3400 (8000 X 40%). By deducting 1/4 th noticing the
family members of the deceased, the same would come to Rs.2975/-.
Thus, the income of the deceased for the future rise of the income of
the deceased is accordingly determined as Rs.8925/- which comes to
Rs.1,07,100/- p.a. Applying multiplier of 18, considering the age of
the deceased as it was 23 years, the loss of dependency is determined
as Rs.19,27,800/-. Thus, amount of loss of dependency is enhanced
from Rs.17,01,000/- to Rs.19,27,800/-. The claim of the appellant
towards the amount of compensation under the conventional heads
are concerned, in view of the settled principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/59/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), an amount of
Rs.16,500/- awarded under head of loss of estate and funeral
expenses are respectively enhanced to Rs.18,150/- each. This brings
me to issue of loss of consortium, as rightly pointed out by the learned
advocate for the appellants, the family of the deceased consisted of
both parents, the widow and their 02 children. Considering the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram &
Ors. reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, apart from spouse consortium, the
concept of filial consortium and parental consortium has also been
accepted. Thus, for the loss of consortium, the Tribunal has
committed grave error in confining it to Rs.44,000/- ignoring the fact
that the family of the deceased consisted of aged parents, widow and
two minor children. Considering the settled principles, each of the
claimants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.48,400/- towards the
loss of consortium. Thus, the amount of loss of consortium is
enhanced from Rs.44,000/- to Rs.2,42,000/- (48,400 X 5).
[9] For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The total
amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.15,11,300/- to
Rs.18,75,185/-. The original opponent - respondent ST Corporation is
held liable to pay the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation
with 7.5% interest p.a. right from the date of filing of claim petition till
its actual realization with proportionate costs. The respondent - ST
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/59/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Corporation is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation of Rs.3,63,885/- (18,75,185-15,11,300) with 7.5%
interest p.a. with proportionate costs, as awarded, within a period of
08 eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On deposit of the
aforesaid awarded amount, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed
with the disbursement and the release of the entire award amount in
favour of the original claimants subject to due verification. Let the
aforesaid exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal within a period of
two weeks thereafter. At the stage disbursement, the Tribunal shall
strictly adhere to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[10] With these observations, the First Appeal stands disposed of as
partly allowed in above terms.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
Lalji Desai
