[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Muktaben Karamshibhai Bhuva vs Bhikhabhai Dhirubhai Makawana ... on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2150 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
MUKTABEN KARAMSHIBHAI BHUVA & ORS.
Versus
BHIKHABHAI DHIRUBHAI MAKAWANA (DELETED) & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Gondal (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.05 of
2014, the appellants - original claimants preferred present
appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. N.A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
original Claimants and Mr. Y.K. Gadhia, learned Advocate for
respondent - Insurance Company. The respondent no.2 duly
served with the notice however remained absent. Perused the
original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 23.01.2014, deceased
Chandubhai Karamshibhai Bhuva (who shall hereinafter be
referred to as "deceased") was riding the motorcycle bearing
Reg. No.GJ-05-J-8513, along with his wife and children. When
they reached near Mota Dadva Village, Gondal at that time the
opponent no.1 driver of Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-11-X-9315,
came driving his truck from the opposite side at an excessive
speed, in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life and ultimately dashed with the motorcycle and the accident
occurred. As a result of which deceased and his wife sustained
grievous injures and both succumbed to their injuries. A
complaint was registered against the truck driver. Therefore, the
appellants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After
appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned
Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellants - original claimants has
submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in
considering Rs.4,000/- as notional income of the deceased. The
Tribunal has failed to consider his monthly income of
Rs.10,000/- as the deceased was working as agriculturist as per
minimum wages of prevailing time. Further he has submitted
that the Tribunal has not awarded consortium to each appellants
and relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Somwati and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
others, in Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, and requested to
allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent - Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal on the ground that no error has
been committed by the learned Tribunal. In absence of proof of
income the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and
awarded just compensation and hence the present appeal is
required to be dismissed.
6) Having heard both the learned Advocates and going through the
judgment it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered
oral evidence of claimant no.1 Muktaben Karamshibhai Bhuva at
Exhibit 16, FIR at Exhibit 20, panchnama at Exhibit 21, copy of
Driving License and RC Book of Truck at Exhibits 22 and 23,
Insurance Policy of Truck at Exhibit 24, charge-sheet at Exhibit
27 which was filed against the driver of the Truck. The Tribunal
has considered evidence and came to the conclusion that
involvement of the Truck was proved and point of negligence of
driver of the offending vehicle Truck as sole negligent for
causing the accident and neither the driver of the Truck did not
step in the witness box nor the Insurance Company has not
examined the driver of the Truck to rebut the evidence of the
claimants and said fact is not disputed by the Insurance
Company also. Hence, the learned Tribunal has properly
appreciated the evidence and decided the quantum and
negligence and the driver of Truck held solely negligent for
causing accident.
7) Now coming to the quantum part, relying on the affidavit the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
claimant no.1 has stated that the deceased was doing
agriculture work and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and in
support she has produced abstract of Village Form no.7/12 and
8-A at Exhibit 29 having 25 bighas of agricultural land and no
other document is produced to prove monthly income. So far
agriculture land is concerned supervisory law is considered but
the learned Tribunal has considered income of the deceased as
Rs.4,000/- per month. However, As per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1
(SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record then
Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum wages in absence of
ample evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the
present case the accident occurred on 23.01.2014 and during
that time the deceased was doing agriculture work and as per
the Government approved minimum wages the income is
required to be considered, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed
the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month which is
required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the deceased
is reassessed as Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, as per Birth
Certificate of the deceased at Exhibit 30, the learned Tribunal
has considered age of the deceased as 40 years 8 months and
19 days at the time of accident and as per which future
prospective income as 25% and the deceased having 3
dependents 1/3 deduction as personal expenditure and living of
the deceased and multiplier of 14 were considered by the
learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] and National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
ACJ 2700 which are just and proper.
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as
Rs.6,000/- and future prospect of 25% = Rs.1,500/- which
comes to to Rs.7,500/- and 1/3 amount is required to be
deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased
which comes to Rs.2,500/- and the net amount comes to
Rs.5,000/-. In view of above the amount under the head of
future loss of income is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,000/-
x 12 x 14 = Rs.8,40,000/-. Therefore, the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.2,79,888/-
(Rs.8,40,000/- - Rs.5,60,112/-) under the head of future loss of
income.
9) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.30,000/- under the
two conventional heads and did not award loss of consortium,
however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to be
reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/-
towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants - original
claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e.
Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral
expenses).
10) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu
Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o
Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
666, the learned Tribunal has committed error in not awarding
loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the
appellant no.1 being mother of the deceased and the appellant
nos.2 and 3 being minor children of the deceased are entitled for
Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of consortium.
Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed
as Rs.1,45,200/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 3). Therefore, the
appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.1,45,200/-
under the head of loss of consortium.
11) As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are
entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.5,60,112/- Rs.8,40,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.2,79,888/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium Not awarded Rs.1,45,200/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,45,200/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 3).
Total compensation Rs.5,90,200/- Rs.10,21,500/-
(Rounded off) including total additional
amount of Rs.4,31,300/-
12) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.5,90,200/-, however, as discussed above
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2150/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.4,31,300/- (Rs.10,21,500/- - Rs.5,90,200/-) with
proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
13) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award
dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Gondal, in MAC Petition No.05 of 2014 stands
modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and
award remains unaltered. The respondent no.3 - Insurance
Company shall deposit the said additional amount of
Rs.4,31,300/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal,
before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted
back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
15) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
