[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Madinaben Sikandarbhai Malek vs Altaf Hussain Muhammadmiya Sheikh on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3246 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
MADINABEN SIKANDARBHAI MALEK & ANR.
Versus
ALTAF HUSSAIN MUHAMMADMIYA SHEIKH & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Nadiad (which shall hereinafter be referred to as
"the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.629
of 2022, the appellants - original claimants preferred present
appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which
shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for appellants - original
Claimants and Mr. H. A. Vyas, learned Advocate for respondent -
Insurance Company. Perused the record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 09.07.2022, at around 03:00
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
pm the deceased Sikandarbhai Karimbhai Malek (who shall
hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") was riding his
motorcycle at that time opponent no.1 driver of the Eicher bearing
Reg. No.GJ-06-Z-3653, owned by the opponent no.2 coming in rash
and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the
deceased resultantly leading the occurrence of the accident. The
deceased sustained serious injuries and later he succumbed to his
injuries. Therefore, the appellants being legal heirs of the deceased
had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned
Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has
partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has
not considered prevailing rate of minimum wages and also not
awarded proper amount towards loss of consortium.
5) As challenge is given only qua income and consortium hence the
appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass. 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 09.07.2022 and during that
time the deceased was doing job in J.K. Malt Products Company
and was earning Rs.15,000/- but no evidence is produced on
record. Therefore, as per the Government approved rate of
minimum wages of the year 2022 is required to be considered,
however, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.7,500/- per month which is required to be enhanced and hence,
the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.9,350/- per
month. Further, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
deceased as 53 years and therefore addition towards future
prospectus was considered as 10% and having 2 dependents 1/3
deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased and
multiplier of 11 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] which are just and proper. The learned Tribunal has awarded
Rs.2,65,380/- towards medical bills which is also just and proper.
6) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.9,350/-
and addition towards future prospect of 10% = Rs.935/- which
comes to Rs.10,285/- and 1/3 amount is required to be deducted
as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to
Rs.3,428/- and the net amount comes to Rs.6,857/-. In view of
above, the amount towards future loss of dependency is required to
be reassessed as Rs.6,857/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.9,05,124/-.
Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.1,79,124/- towards future loss of dependency.
7) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported
in 2017 ACJ 2700, has awarded total Rs.1,21,000/- under the
three conventional heads, 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 are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e.
Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1,650/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1,650/- towards funeral expenses).
8) 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
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) 666, the learned Tribunal
has committed error in awarding only Rs.44,000/- each towards
loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the
appellants 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.96,800/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 2).
Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of
Rs.8,800/- towards loss of consortium.
9) As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled
to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Further loss of Rs.7,26,000/- Rs.9,05,124/-
income including additional
amount of Rs.1,79,124/-
Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,650/-
Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,650/-
Loss of spousal Rs.44,000/- Rs.48,400/-
consortium including additional
amount of Rs.4,400/-
Loss of parental Rs.44,000/- Rs.48,400/-
consortium including additional
amount of Rs.4,400/-
Medical bills Rs.2,65,380/- Rs.2,65,380/-
Total compensation Rs.11,50,000/- Rs.13,03,604/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.1,91,224/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3246/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/12/2025
undefined
10) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.11,50,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,91,224/-
(Rs.13,03,604/- - Rs.11,50,000/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad, in MAC Petition No.629 of 2022 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.1,91,224/- 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.
12) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
13) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
