Gujarat High Court
Amratben Gokalbhai Parmar vs Sajidbhai Sirajbhai Vahora on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2857 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
AMRATBEN GOKALBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
SAJIDBHAI SIRAJBHAI VAHORA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. SUPRIYA TIWARI(17483) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Pooja H. Hotchandani, learned advocate on record
for the appellants-original claimants. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi
Gadhia has entered his appearance on behalf of respondent no.3-
Insurance Company at the stage of condonation of delay.
2. With joint request of learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
admission stage. Looking at the limited issued raised in the present
appeal, the appeal is heard finally in absence of respondent nos.1 and
2, who are the driver and owner of the insured vehicle and their
interest being efficiently represented by the contesting respondent
no.3-Insurance Company.
3. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original
claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying
for enhancement of the award amount, being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 15.03.2024
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & 5 th
Additional District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No. 227 of 2021.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants-original
claimants has placed on record the proposed calculation, and has
submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in confining the
income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month ignoring
the minimum wages notified by the State Government in case of
skilled worker at the relevant point of time. Learned advocate has
invited my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal, as recorded in Para 14 of the impugned judgment and award,
and has submitted that bare appreciation of the Notification, it is
evident that the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
time of the occurrence of accident in case of skilled worker, was
Rs.9,087/-. She has, therefore, urged this Court to enhance the
amount of compensation under the head of future prospective
income.
4.1 Secondly, learned advocate has assailed the impugned
judgment and award insofar as the amount of loss of filial consortium
being awarded by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the claimants are
the parents and two younger brothers of the deceased. She has
further submitted that the father of the deceased was originally
claimant no.1 in the claim proceedings. However, pending the hearing
of the claim petition, he had unfortunately expired. She has further
submitted that the Tribunal, though, had applied the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680 as well as the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance
Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in AIRONLINE 2018
SC 1249, has confined the awarding of amount of compensation under
the head of filial consortium to the tune of Rs.40,000/- only. She has
also urged this Court to re-consider the amount of compensation
awarded under other conventional heads including loss of estate and
funeral expenses.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
4.2 By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has urged
this Court to allow the present appeal, and to enhance the amount of
compensation, which may be awarded with interest and proportionate
costs.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia appearing for respondent
no.3-Insurance Company has mainly relied upon the findings and
reasons assigned by the Claim Tribunal. However, learned advocate
was unable to dispute the settled legal position in this regard, and has
urged this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and considering their submissions, in light of the findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal, the only limited issue, which falls for
consideration of this Court is, as to whether the Tribunal committed
any error in awarding the amount of compensation under the
respective heads, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the
evidence brought on record?
7. Admittedly, the present appeal is preferred at the instance of
the original claimants, confining their submissions to the quantum of
compensation essentially on the ground of future prospective income,
loss of consortium and conventional heads, as awarded by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Tribunal. The respondent no.3-Insurance Company though having
contested the present appeal, has not preferred any appeal, so far
against the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. In
such circumstances, the issue of the negligency of the driver of the
insured vehicle, the involvement of the vehicle and the liability, as
determined and fixed by the Tribunal, has attained finality. Other
foundational factors for the purpose of determination of amount of
compensation under different heads are concerned, viz-a-viz, the age
of the deceased and the number of the claimants and the deduction
and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, have remained
uncontroverted.
8. As regards the submissions made by learned advocate, the
income of the deceased being determined on lower side is concerned,
in absence of any proof of income being produced on record and
considering the nature of vocation with which the deceased was
associated, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was earning his
livelihood by doing Mistri work. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has
rightly treated the deceased to be a skilled worker. In view of the
settled legal position, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Govind Yadav vs The New India Insurance Co.Ltd
reported in 2011 (10) SCC 683, in absence of proof of income, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Tribunal ought to have considered the yardstick of minimum wages
prevailing at the relevant point of time, as notified by the State
Government. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased had
succumbed to injuries due to the motor vehicle accident, which had
occurred on 09.09.2020. On bare perusal of the Notification issued by
the State Government, as rightly pointed out by learned advocate for
the appellants-original claimants, the minimum wages prevailing on
the date of occurrence of accident, in the case of skilled worker, was
Rs.9,087/-.
9. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal committed
grave error in confining the income of the deceased to the tune of
Rs.7,000/- only. The object of beneficial piece of legislation is to
extend just and proper amount of compensation to the victims of the
motor vehicle accident. Keeping the aforesaid object in mind, this
Court is inclined to accept the submissions made by learned advocate
for the appellants-original claimants and the income is accordingly
enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.9,087/- per month. The prospective
future income of the deceased is considered by applying 40% rise,
noticing the age of the deceased being 22 years at the time of
occurrence of accident, the prospective income is accordingly
considered as Rs.9,087 x 40% = Rs. Rs.3,635/- i.e. Rs. 9087/- + Rs.3635/-
= Rs. 12,722/-. Since, the deceased was survived by both aged parents
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
and two younger brothers, the Tribunal has rightly applied the
parameters indicated in the table reproduced in the case of Sarla
Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr reported in (2009) 2
ACJ 1298, and has considered deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased who was unmarried as one half (½). Thus,
the base income of the deceased, after deduction, is considered as
Rs.6,361/-. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 18,
considering the age of the deceased as 22 years at the time of
accident and accordingly, the future loss of income of the deceased is
re-determined as Rs.13,73,976/- (6361x12x18).
10. Having held so, the issue of consortium is also required to be re-
considered, in light of settled the legal position laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General (supra. As
pointed out by learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants,
the original claim petition was preferred by both the parents, which
includes the father of the deceased, who had unfortunately expired,
pending the claim proceedings. May that be so, the fact remains that
on the date of accident, the father of the claimant was entitled to the
loss towards filial consortium. Hence, applying the aforesaid principles
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts of the case and considering
10% rise, this Court is of the view that filial consortium is required to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
be reconsidered as Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400x 2) for both parents . So far
as the enhancement sought for under the conventional heads are
concerned, in view of the settled legal position laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), in the
facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellants- original
claimants shall be entitled to an amount of R.18,150/- each under the
heads of loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. For the
foregoing reasons, the revised calculation of the enhanced amount of
compensation is reproduced in tabular form hereunder:
Under the Head of Compensation
of Rs.
Future loss of income 13,73,976/-
Loss of estate 18,150/-
Loss of Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Loss of Filial Consortium 96,800/-
Total 15,07,076/-
Less awarded amount of 11,31,400/-
compensation by Tribunal
Enhanced amount 3,75,676/-
(Rs.15,07,076- 11,31,400)=
Interest @7.5%
11. For the foregoing reasons, the present First Appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and award dated 15.03.2024 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & 5 th Additional District
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No. 227 of 2021, is hereby
modified by enhancing the amount of Rs.3,75,676/- towards total
compensation to the original claimants-appellants herein, with
proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization, to be
realized jointly and severally from the original opponent nos.1 to 3-
respondents herein.
12. Respondent No.3 in particular, being the Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with
interest and costs with the concerned Tribunal within a period of
Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On deposit of the
aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall proceed with release and
disbursement of the entire award amount in favour of the present
appellant no.1 to the extent of 70%, appellant no.2 to the extent of
15% and appellant no.3 to the extent of 15%, subject to due
verification strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. While making the payment,
learned Tribunal/Court shall deduct the Court Fess, if not paid, in
accordance with prevailing Rule. Let the aforesaid exercise be
undertaken by the Tribunal within a period of two weeks from the
date of deposit of the award amount.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2857/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
13. With these observations, present First Appeal stands disposed
of in aforesaid terms.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
