Gujarat High Court

Budhabhai Raimalbhai Parmar (Died) vs Shivkumar R. Yadav on 6 May, 2025

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/3260/2024                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3260 of 2024


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
                       ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                        Yes            No
                                                                                             ✔
                       ==========================================================
                                      BUDHABHAI RAIMALBHAI PARMAR (DIED) & ORS.
                                                       Versus
                                             SHIVKUMAR R. YADAV & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
                       MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                       RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                                                        Date : 06/05/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the

judgment and award dated 12th August, 2022 passed

by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),

Kheda at Nadiad in MCAP No.811 of 2017, the

appellants-original claimants are before this

Court by way of present Appeal under Section 173

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking

enhancement in compensation.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

2. The original claim of the claimants was

of Rs.06,00,000/-. As against that, the learned

Tribunal has awarded Rs.07,20,000/- under various

heads as under.

                                       Particulars                                 Amount (Rs.)
                       Future loss of dependency                                             06,50,052/-
                       consortium                                                                   40,000/-
                       Loss of estate                                                               15,000/-
                       Funeral                                                                      15,000/-
                       Total compensation                                                    07,20,052/-

Which is rounded upto Rs.07,20,000/- as total amount of compensation.

3. The facts of the case can be summarised

as under.

3.1 On 29th June, 2017 at about 05.00 p.m.,

deceased and her husband were travelling on the

motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-16-BC-1494.

The husband of the deceased was driving his

motorcycle at slow speed, however while they

reached Indore-Ahmedabad highway road, on the

bridge of Mahisagar river, a Tanker bearing

Registration No.GJ-12-Y-9925 being driven by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

driver in rash and negligent manner and in

excessive speed, dashed with the motorcycle from

behind and as a result thereof, deceased and her

husband both fell down and receive serious

injuries and ultimately, deceased succumb to the

injuries.

3.2 The claimants thereby approached the

learned Tribunal by way of petition under Section

166 of the Act for the compensation of

Rs.06,00,000/- for untimely death of the deceased

occurred in the vehicular accident.

3.3 Learned Tribunal, having considered the

evidence on record, assessed the income of the

deceased at Rs.05,000/- per month in absence of

any documentary evidence to prove the income of

the deceased at Rs.07,000/- as pleaded in the

claim petition. The learned Tribunal considered

the age of the deceased at 49 years. Thereafter

the learned Tribunal, after having considered the

ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

case of National Insurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], future

prospective income was also added at 25% in the

income. Thus, the monthly income assessed by the

learned Tribunal arrived at Rs.06,250/-

(Rs.05,000-/ + 25%). The learned Tribunal

thereafter deducted one-third amount towards

personal expenditure. Thus, net income for the

purpose of considering the income under the head

of loss of income arrived at Rs.04,167/- per

month (Rs.06,250/- - 1/3). Applying the

multiplier of 13, in all, the learned Tribunal

has awarded Rs.06,50,052/- (Rs.04,167/-X12X13).

3.4 The learned Tribunal thereafter also

awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses,

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. Thus, in all, the

learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of

Rs.07,20,000/- with 7.5% interest.

3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

the aforesaid, the appellants-original claimants

have approached this Court by way of this Appeal

seeking, inter alia, enhancement of compensation.

4. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 27th September, 2024 admitted the

First Appeal and listed for hearing on 24th

October, 2024 and that is how the present Appeal

is come up today for final hearing. Record &

Proceedings is also received and therefore, the

present Appeal is taken up for final disposal.

5. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Nishit

Bhalodi for the appellants-claimants and learned

advocate Mr.V.C. Thomas for the respondent No.3-

insurance company. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have

though served, chosen not to appear and not

contest the matter.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Bhalodi for the

appellants-original claimants, while impugning

the judgment and award, has made following

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

submissions.

(i) Learned advocate, at the outset,

submitted that the present Appeal is filed on a

very limited issue with regard to quantum only.

He submitted that the learned Tribunal while

deciding the compensation under the head of

future loss, has assessed the income of the

deceased on lower side. Learned advocate

submitted that income of the deceased said to

have been Rs.07,000/- per month. However, without

any rhyme or reason and under wrong guesswork,

the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of

the deceased at Rs.05,000/- per month. Learned

advocate submitted that as such, as per the

schedule of minimum wages, income of a person is

stated to be Rs.08,000/- per month

approximately. However, learned advocate

submitted that he would restrict his claim to

Rs.07,000/- per month as originally pleaded in

the claim petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

(ii) Learned advocate next submitted that

even as per the decision of the Apex Court in the

case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the dependents are

required to be granted consortium of Rs.40,000/-

plus 10% increase for every three years. He,

therefore, submitted that the consortium of

Rs.40,000/- awarded to only one dependent and

case of the two dependents were not considered.

Thus, learned advocate submitted that learned

Tribunal has committed serious error. According

to learned advocate for the appellants,

consortium ought to have been awarded at the rate

of Rs.48,000/- to each of the dependents.

6.1 By making above submissions, learned

advocate for the appellants requested this Court

to modify the award accordingly.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Thomas

for the insurance company has vehemently opposed

the present Appeal and has made following

submissions.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

(i) Learned advocate for the insurance

company contended inter alia that the award is

absolutely just and proper and no interference is

required to be called for by this Court. Learned

advocate submitted that the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the income of the deceased at

Rs.05,000/- per month in absence of any evidence

produced with regard to income proof. According

to learned advocate, the date of accident is of

the year 2017 and keeping in mind the standard of

living in that period, Rs.05,000/- income

assessed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly

justified. Learned advocate, however, could not

dispute the ratio of law laid down by the Apex

Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) with

regard to consortium.

7.1 By making above submissions, learned

advocate for the insurance company requests this

Court to dismiss the Appeal in the interest of

justice.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

8. I have considered the submissions of the

learned advocates for the respective parties and

have gone through the Record & Proceedings of the

case. No other and/or further submissions have

been canvassed by learned advocates for the

respective parties except what are stated

hereinabove.

9. A short question that falls for

consideration of this Court is whether the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal can

be said to be adequate in nature?

10. So as to decide the aforesaid question,

income deserves to be considered appropriately.

So far as assessment of income is concerned with

regard to a person who has no proof of income,

the learned Tribunal and/or the Court can do some

logical guesswork. While doing so, one of the

yardsticks can be to peruse the schedule of

minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident.

In the instant case, although the minimum wages

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

during the period when the accident took place

and stated to be Rs.08,118/- per month, however

the appellant chosen to adopt his original

pleading made in the claim petition i.e.

Rs.07,000/- per month. Considering the fact and

submissions made by learned advocate for the

appellant, this Court would not like to delve

further and would like to hold that income

assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.05,000/-

is on lower side. Accordingly, this Court would

like to propose income of the deceased at

Rs.07,000/- per month. Considering the age of the

deceased, as per the law laid down by the Apex

Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25%

prospective income deserves to be added. Thus,

the monthly income of the deceased would be

Rs.08,750/- (Rs.07,000/- + 25%), out of which

one-third amount deserves to be deducted towards

personal expenditure which would come to

Rs.02,917/-. Thus, the monthly income of the

deceased would come to Rs.05,833/- (Rs.08,750/- -

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

Rs.02,917/-). So far as the age and the

multiplier of 13 is concerned, the same is not

disputed by either of the party and hence,

whatever is awarded by the learned Tribunal

deserves to be accepted. Thus, on overall

consideration, future loss of income would come

to Rs.09,09,948/- (Rs.05,833/- X 12 X 13).

10.1 With regard to amount of consortium,

this Court feels that the learned Tribunal has

not awarded compensation under the head of

consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court

in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Considering

the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in

the said case, all the dependents are entitled to

compensation under the head of consortium at

Rs.40,000/-, with a further rider that the same

shall be increased by 10% after every three

years. Thus, considering the decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the

compensation under the head of consortium would

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

undefined

come to Rs.48,400/- to each of the claimants.

Thus, the compensation under the head of

consortium would come to Rs.01,45,200/-

(Rs.48,400 X 3). Compensation under the head of

funeral expenses and loss of estate also deserves

to be modified in consonance with the decision of

the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi

(supra), which thus come to Rs.18,150/- each.

I answer the question accordingly.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion,

judgment and decree passed by the learned

Tribunal deserves to be modified as under.

                         Sr.                       Particulars                                  Amount
                         No.                                                                     (Rs.)
                           1      Future loss of income                                       09,09,948/-
                           2      Loss of consortium                                          01,45,200/-
                           3      Loss of estate                                                     18,150/-
                           4      Funeral expenses                                                   18,150/-
                                                     Total compensation                     10,91,448/-
                                                   minus Awarded amount                   - 07,20,000/-
                                                           Enhanced amount                    03,71,448/-

                       12.              The      aforesaid          amount      of       Rs.03,71,448/-






                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/3260/2024                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025

                                                                                                                     undefined

is to be paid with 7.5% interest p.a. The Appeal

is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.3-insurance

company is hereby directed to deposit the

enhanced amount of Rs.03,71,448/- along with 7.5%

interest from the date of claim application till

its realisation within a period of eight weeks

from today. On such deposit being made, the

learned Tribunal is hereby directed to disburse

the said amount in favour of the claimant/s by

way of RTGS/NEFT after proper verification and

identification in the account of the claimant/s.

13. Needless to clarify that at the time of