Gujarat High Court
Legal Heirs Of Decd. Maganbhai ... vs Laxmanji Dargaji Thakor on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3447/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3447 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. MAGANBHAI LALJIBHAI DESAI & ORS.
Versus
LAXMANJI DARGAJI THAKOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA(2475) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated
26.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxi), Banaskantha at Palanpur in MACP No.560 of 1993.
2. Vide the said impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the
present appellants - original claimants under Section 166 of
the Act, 1988 holding the present appellants- original
claimants entitled to an amount of Rs.2,02,500/- with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of such
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3447/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate
costs. Thus, the Tribunal has not entertained the claim
petition for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as total compensation.
3. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2011 noticing the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants-
original claimants and the grounds raised in the appeal, has
admitted the appeal.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Vishvajit Vadher on behalf of Ms.
Archana Aacharya, learned advocate appearing for the
appellants- original claimants has assailed the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal mainly on two
counts on the issue of quantum of compensation. Firstly, it
was submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income of
the deceased and secondly, the amount awarded under the
conventional heads are on the lower side. Learned advocate
has invited my attention of the findings and reasons assigned
by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue. It is submitted by the
learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants that
the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- by working as ST driver.
The salary slip of the deceased has also been produced on
record vide Exhibit-37. It is also submitted that the deceased
was earning Rs.1000/- from the agricultural activity as well.
However, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased to Rs.1,500/- per month only. He has submitted that
considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay
Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 40% towards future
prospects of income is required to be taken into consideration.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3447/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
He has further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly
adopted the multiplier of 15 noticing the age of the deceased
at the time of the accident. Learned advocate has therefore,
submitted that the amount of compensation awarded towards
the head of loss of future income may be enhanced from
Rs.1,80,000-/- to Rs.3,20,040/-. As regards the amount
awarded under the head of loss of consortium is concerned,
learned advocate has once again invited my attention to the
fact that the deceased was survived by widow and two
children and are therefore, entitled to enhance amount of
compensation towards loss of consortium in light of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhur
Ram & Ors reported in (2018)18 SCC 130. He urged
therefore to enhance the amount of loss of consortium
Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- x 3). Learned advocate has lastly
submitted that the amount awarded under the conventional
heads, more particularly, towards funeral expenses and loss
of estate, is also required to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/-
respectively, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). By making the
aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has urged this Court
to enhance the amount of compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,97,500/- which may be awarded with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
its actual realization.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta appearing of the
respondent no.3- Insurance Company has placed reliance
upon the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3447/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
vehemently argued that the compensation must be awarded
as just, proper and reasonable and not higher side and further
submitted that learned Tribunal, after appreciating the
materials available on record, awarded the compensation
under each head is just, proper and reasonable and not
required to interfere and lastly prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties on
the disputes between the parties in narrow compass and
perused the record and proceedings and impugned judgment
and award, more particularly, the findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal while considering the issue of
quantum of compensation.
7. As regards the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the appellants on the assessment of the income
of the deceased is concerned, the tribunal has made no error
in not considering the agricultural income and the reasons
assigned by the tribunal to that effect is satisfactory.
However, the Tribunal committed error in assessing the
income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.1,500/- per month
only. The deceased was working as a driver in the ST
Department. Noticing the work with which the deceased was
associated and the evidence produced in that regard, this
Court is inclined to enhance the income in view of the
aforesaid. Thus, the income of the deceased is determined as
Rs.2000/- per month.
8. As regards the future prospect is concerned, in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) noticing the age of the deceased as 36
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3447/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
years, as accepted by the Tribunal by considering the
postmortem report produced on record at Exh.42 and noticing
the fact that deceased was fixed salary employee, 40% amount
can be considered towards the future prospects of the
deceased. As rightly recorded by the Tribunal, considering the
fact that the deceased was survived by widow and two
children, 1/3rd deduction has been applied towards spend by
the deceased on himself. Thus, the calculation of the
prospective income of the deceased at the rate of 40% is
considered as Rs.2000/- * 40% (Rs.800/-) = Rs.2800/-. After
1/3rd deduction towards personal expese of the deceased, the
calculation of the income the deceased is Rs.1867/-(Rs.2800/- -
Rs.933/- (1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses.)
Noticing the fact that the deceased was aged 36 years at the
time of accident, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009)
6 SCC 121 and the scheduled prescribed, the Tribunal has
rightly applied multiplier of 15 in the facts of the case. Thus,
the future loss benefit is determined as Rs.2800/-*12*15
(Multiplier) which comes to Rs.3,36,060/-. This brings me to
the issue of loss of consortium as prayed for by the learned
advocate for the appellants- original claimants. As rightly
prayed for by the learned advocate for the appellant in view of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), the claimants
would be entitled to enhance amount of compensation under
the head of loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,45,200/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 3). Lastly, the amount to be awarded under the
conventional heads, more particularly, funeral expenses and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3447/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
the loss of estate is also required to be reconsidered in view of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra). The same is to be considered as
Rs.18,150/- respectively.
9. Therefore, original claimants - appellants herein are
entitled to enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
Compensation As per award under As awarded by this
challenge (Rs.) Court (Rs.)
Actual salary/ 1500/- 2000/-
income
Prospective income - 800/- (40%)
Deduction of 1/3 (Rs.500/-) 1/3(Rs.933/-)
amount spent by
the deceased on
himself
Future Loss 1000/-*12*15 1867/-*12*15
= Rs.1,80,000/- = Rs.3,36,060/-
For loss of 1,45,200/- (48,400/-
consortium Rs.20000/- X 3)
(consolidated sum)
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Funeral expenses 2500/- 18,150/-
and transportation
Total Compensation Rs.2,02,500/- Rs.5,17,560/-
Enhanced - Rs.5,17,560/- minus
compensation Rs.2,02,500/-
=Rs.3,15,060/-
10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and
award dated 26.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi), Banaskantha District at Palanpur in MACP
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3447/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
No.560 of 1993 hereby modified. The appellants- original
claimant are held entitled to compensation of an amount of
Rs.5,17,560/-. Since by impugned judgment and award the
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,02,500/-, the
appellants shall be entitled to enhanced amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,15,060/- (Rs.5,17,560/- -
Rs.2,02,500/-) with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date
of filing of claim petition till its actual realization. The
respondents - original opponents are held jointly and
severally liable to pay such enhanced amount of compensation
with proportionate costs and interest.
11. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited with the
concerned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date
of receipt of the present order. On deposit of the aforesaid
amount, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release and
disburse the entire award amount in favour of the original
claimant, after due verification as per the original judgment
and award.
12. Let, such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal strictly
in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in this regard; preferably within a period of
two weeks from deposit of such amount. The Tribunal is
directed to realize the deficit Court fees before proceeding
with the disbursement of the amount.
13. R&P be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if
received.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
