Gujarat High Court
Chauhan Jasvantbhai Sonaji vs Kishorsinh Deleted on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1865/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1865 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
CHAUHAN JASVANTBHAI SONAJI & ORS.
Versus
KISHORSINH DELETED & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR KRUNAL R SAKSENA(5915) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 13.08.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux), Modasa (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"
for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.105 of 2019, 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 -
original Claimants and Mr. K. R. Saksena, learned Advocate for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1865/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record
and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 01.05.2019 at about
06:00 pm, the deceased - Chauhan Bhemsinh Jasvantsinh and
one Deepsinh Kalusinh Chauhan were proceeding on Motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-AP-1712 and going towards Bayal
Dhokhrol from Mohanpur and motorcycle was driven by the
deceased himself, when they reached near the place of accident
at that time the respondent no.1 herein came driving his dumber
bearing Reg. No.GJ-09-AU-2513, in excessive speed in rash and
negligent manner from opposite side on wrong side of the road
due to which accident occurred and deceased sustained serious
fatal injuries. One complaint being I-C. R. No.13 of 2019 was
registered with Dhansura Police Station. 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) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal
has not considered minimum wages of prevalent time and also
not considered 40% increase in income as future prospect due
to which loss is suffered by the appellants.
5) As challenge is given only qua income and future prospect 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
01.05.2019 and during that time the deceased was doing colour
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1865/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
work and farming and as per the Government approved
minimum wages the rate was Rs.8,400/-, whereas, the Tribunal
has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,500/- per
month which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income
of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,400/- per month. Further,
the learned Tribunal has considered loss of dependency of the
deceased as 40% which is just and proper and as the deceased
was bachelor ½ deduction as personal expenditure and living of
the deceased was considered by the learned Tribunal. Further,
the learned Tribunal has considered the multiplier of 14,
however, 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], as the deceased was aged 23
years old at the time of accident which is evident as per the
School Leaving Certificate produced at Exhibit 43, the appellants
are entitled for multiplier of 18 (inadvertently mentioned as
multiplier of 14 in para 10.5 of the judgment of the trial Court).
6) Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8,400/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,360/- which comes to to
Rs.11,760/- and ½ amount is required to be deducted as
personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to
Rs.5,880/- and the net amount comes to Rs.5,880/-. In view of
above the amount under the head of future loss of income is
required to be reassessed as Rs.5,880/- x 12 x 18 =
Rs.12,70,080/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.4,92,480/- under the head of future
loss of income.
Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-
towards filial consortium, however, this Court is of the view that
the appellant nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get Rs.48,400/- each
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1865/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
towards filial consortium. Therefore, the appellant nos.1 and 2
are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.56,800/- under the
head of filial consortium.
7) As the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.8,47,600/-, and deducted 10% contributory negligence which
comes to Rs.7,62,840/-, hence, as discussed above the
appellant would be entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.4,94,352/- (i.e. Rs.4,92,480/- under the head of future loss
of income plus Rs.56,800/- under the head of filial consortium
and deducting 10% contributory negligence) with proportionate
costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
8) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and
award dated 13.08.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux), Modasa, in MAC Petition No.105 of 2019
stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment
and award remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent
No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount
of Rs.4,94,352/- 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.
9) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
10) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
