Gujarat High Court
Fidkiben Hanjabhai Solanki (Adivasi) vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4272 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
FIDKIBEN HANJABHAI SOLANKI (ADIVASI) & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
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 learned advocate Mr. Vishal C. Mehta appearing for the
appellants - original claimants and learned advocate Ms. Sejal K.
Mandavia who has entered her appearance for and on behalf of
respondent - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'ST
Corporation').
[2] The present First 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 heirs and legal representatives of the deceased who
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
had succumbed to the fatal injuries caused in a motor vehicle
accident.
[3] The original claimants 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
M.A.C.P.No.206 of 2019, whereby against the claim an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- being raised by filing claim petition under Section 166
of 'the Act', the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition holding
them entitled to seek recovery of amount of Rs.16,89,800/- from the
original opponent - ST Corporation, interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a,
with proportionate costs from the date of filing the claim petition till
actual realization.
[4] Learned advocate for the appellants, at the outset, has invited
my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal,
while determining the issue of quantum of compensation is
concerned. He has submitted that indisputably the date of occurrence
of accident is 31.05.2019 and it has been established that the
deceased was aged 34 years at the time of accident and was engaged
in labour work by doing masonry work. Though, the income of the
deceased was claimed to be Rs.15,000/- p.m., the Tribunal has, in
absence of any documentary evidence / proof of income of the
deceased being produced on record, has followed the yardstick of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
minimum wages and fixed the monthly income on lower-side to the
extent of Rs.7500/- only. At this stage, learned advocate had placed
reliance upon the rate of minimum wage notified by the State
Government as prevailing on the date of occurrence of accident. It was
submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered an amount of
Rs.8500/- as monthly income, in view of the aforesaid rate of
minimum wages prescribed by the State Government as prevailing on
the date of the accident.
[4.1] Learned advocate had further pointed out that the Tribunal has
rightly considered future rise of income to the extent of 40%. As
regards the deduction applied, learned advocate had fairly conceded
that noticing the fact that the deceased was survived by 7 members in
the family, has rightly applied deduction of 1/5 th to the income of the
deceased towards the personal expenses. As regards the multiplier
adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, learned advocate had submitted
that looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly
considered the multiplier of 16 while considering the loss of
dependency. He has, therefore, submitted that the foundational
factors towards the computation of loss of dependency being
uncontroverted in absence of challenge being made by the respondent
- ST Corporation, the same may be considered for the purpose of loss
of dependency. He has, therefore, urged this Court to enhance an
amount of compensation of Rs.16,12,800/- awarded under the head
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
of loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.18,27,840/-.
[4.2] As regards the conventional heads are concerned, learned
advocate has placed reliance upon the settled legal position as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi And Ors. reported in
2017 (16) SCC 680 and has urged this Court to enhance the amount
of Rs.16,500/- awarded under the head of loss of estate and funeral
expenses to the tune of Rs.18,150/- respectively. Lastly, learned
advocate has urged this Court to consider the amount awarded under
the head of loss of consortium which is confined to only Rs.44,000/-.
According to learned advocate, the Tribunal has ignored the fact that
the deceased was survived by 07 members in the family which mainly
includes the wife of the deceased and their 06 children. He has,
therefore, urged this Court to award separate amount towards the
filial consortium and to enhance it to Rs.3,38,800/-. Learned advocate
has therefore prayed to allow the present appeal by awarding the total
amount of compensation of Rs.22,02,940/-, which may be awarded
with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till
its actual realization.
[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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Tribunal. As regards the submission made by the learned advocate for
the appellant 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.
[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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
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 as on the date
of occurrence of the accident, which is 31.05.2019, it is evident that
the rates prevailing were Rs.2560/-, so far as skilled workers are
concerned.
[8] Noticing the vocation with which the applicant deceased was
engaged, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions of learned
advocate for the appellant 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 1/5 th noticing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
family members of the deceased, the same would come to Rs.2380/-.
Thus, the income of the deceased for the future rise of the income of
the deceased is accordingly determined as Rs.9520/- which comes to
Rs.1,14,240/- p.a. Applying multiplier of 16, considering the age of
the deceased as it was 34 years, the loss of dependency is determined
as Rs.18,27,840/-. Thus, amount of loss of dependency is enhanced
from Rs.16,12,800/- to Rs.18,27,840/-. The claim of 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
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 the
widow and their 6 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 has also been accepted. Thus, the minor children who
have lost the love and affection of their father, are also 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Rs.3,38,800/- (48,400 x 7).
[9] For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The total
amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.16,89,800/- to
Rs.22,02,940/-. 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
Corporation is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation of Rs.5,13,140/- (22,02,940-16,89,800) 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 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
allowed in above terms.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
Lalji Desai
