Gujarat High Court
Jashiben Chandubhai Solanki vs Gopalbhai Jivabhai Kaliya on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1195/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1195 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JASHIBEN CHANDUBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
Versus
GOPALBHAI JIVABHAI KALIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 30.12.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary), Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No.897/2012, whereby
the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.7,73,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal are that on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1195/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
19.06.2012 at about 5:00 in the evening, deceased Chandubhai Solanki
was going by driving his auto rickshaw bearing registration
No.GJ.7.VW.5410 and when he reached near the place of accident at
Kheda-Dholka Highway, near Rampur Patiya, in the meantime, the
tanker bearing registration No.GJ.13.V.6289 came in full speed, in rash
and negligent manner and hit the rickshaw from the behind. At the time
of accident, the said tanker was being driven by respondent no.1 herein.
In the said accident, Chandubhai Solanki sustained serious injuries and
subsequently, succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of the
original claimants/appellants herein that at the time of accident, the
deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- from doing the farming work,
animal husbandry and renting his rickshaw. It is also the case of the
appellants/claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was
aged about 39 years, therefore, they claim the compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- under Section 166 of the MV Act.
3. Having been served with the notices of the claim petition, the
respondent no.3/insurance company had filed the written statement at
Exh.21 wherein, the factum of accident, compensation, liability and age
of the deceased etc. were denied and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the applicant prove that the deceased died due to use of
the vehicle involved in the accident as contended?
(2) Whether the applicants are entitled to get compensation ? If yes,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1195/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
what amount and from whom.
(3) What award and order?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the original
claimants/appellants herein have led the following oral as well as
documentary evidences:-
Sr. No. Evidences Exhibit No.
1. Affidavit of Jashiben Chandubhai Solanki 25
5. Extract of Village form No.7/12 of land bearing 36
survey no.341 situated at village Hariyala
6. Extract of Village form No.7/12 of land bearing 37
survey no.143 situated at village Hariyala
7. Extract of Village form No.7/12 of land bearing 38
survey no.374/2 situated at village Napa Talpad
8. Extract of Village form No.8-A of land bearing survey
no.166 situated at village Napa Talpad
9. Copy of R.C. Book of vehicle bearing registration 40
No.GJ.23.W.3962
6. The insurance company had not led any oral as well as
documentary evidences before the learned Tribunal.
7. Having considered the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.7,73,000/- as a compensation along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1195/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the original claimants/appellants herein preferred the captioned
appeal.
Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original claimants/appellants submitted that the appellants herein are
challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground of
quantum. He submitted that though the appellants have proved on
record that the deceased was having two source of income i.e. the
income by driving the auto rickshaw and agricultural income and in the
claim petition, they have pleaded that the annual income of the
deceased was Rs.1,00,000/-. He further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.3,000/-, which is lower than the minimum income prevalent at the
relevant point of time. He further submitted that the monthly income
from the both sources could have determined as Rs.10,000/- per month.
He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded the meagre
amount under the conventional head. He further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of
loss of estate. He further submitted that the impugned judgment is liable
to be modified to the above extent.
9. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Prajapat, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned counsel for the respondent
no.3/insurance company, submitted that at the relevant point of time,
the minimum wages for skilled worker was Rs.4,900/-. Therefore, the
income at the most can be determined as Rs.5,000/- per month from
both the sources. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
committed the gross illegality in applying the multiplier of 16 in place of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1195/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
15. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was
aged about 39 years but however, the learned Tribunal has added the
future prospective income at 50% in place of 40%. He further submitted
that the impugned judgment is required to be modified to that extent.
10. Having considered the submission of the learned counsels for the
parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is to be
noted that there is no dispute regarding the negligence. The learned
counsel for the appellant has raised the grievance in respect of
determination of income of the deceased. It is on record that the
deceased was having two source of income, one is from the rental
income of his auto rickshaw and another is by doing agricultural work
and animal husbandry work. The learned Tribunal has determined the
income as Rs.3,000/- per month; however, it was pleaded before the
learned Tribunal that the annual income of the deceased was
Rs.1,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, the
minimum wages for the skilled worker was Rs.4,900/- per month.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the deceased was having two
source of income, therefore, in my considered view, it would be just and
fair, if the income of the deceased is determined as Rs.7,000/- per
month. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was
aged about 39 years, therefore, in view of the ratio of judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, 40%
increase is to be made to the monthly income on account of the future
prospective income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has added
50% as a prospective income, which in my considered view, is not in
accordance to the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
therefore, the 40% of the monthly income is to be added on account of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1195/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
prospective income of the deceased to the notional income. Therefore,
the monthly income after adding 40% on account of future prospective
income of the deceased, the notional income would come to Rs.9,800/-
i.e. (7,000+ 7,000X40%) per month. It is on record that the deceased
left behind by his four legal representatives, therefore, 1/4 th of the
monthly income is required to be deducted on account of personal
expenses of the deceased in accordance to the ratio of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in AIR (2009) 6 SC 3104.
Thus, after deducting 1/4th of the monthly income on account of
personal expenses, the net income for calculating the loss of
dependency would come to Rs.7,350/-. Therefore, the annual loss of
dependency would come to Rs.88,200 i.e. (7,350X12).
11. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 39 years,
therefore, in view of the ratio of Sarla Verma (supra), a multiplier of 15 is
required to be applied; however, the learned Tribunal has applied the
wrong multiplier of 16. Thus, applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss
of dependency would come to Rs.13,23,000/- i.e. (88,200X15). The
learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of
loss of consortium; however, the deceased left behind by his widow, 2
sons and one daughter. All four legal representatives are entitled for the
compensation under the head of loss of consortium in view of the
judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., reported
in 2018 (18) SCC 130. Therefore, all the legal representatives shall be
entitled for a compensation under the head of loss of consortium and
accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- i.e. (48400X4) is awarded under the
head of loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal has also awarded a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1195/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, which is
required to be reduced in accordance to the ratio of judgment of Pranay
Sethi (supra) to Rs.18,150/-. It is to be noted that the learned Tribunal
has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of estate.
Therefore, a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of loss of
estate. In view of the above discussions, the appellant shall be entitled
for the following compensation:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Loss of dependency 13,23,000/-
2. Loss of consortium to all 4 legal 1,93,600/-
representatives
3. Loss of estate 18,150/-
4. Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Total 15,52,900/-
12. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,73,000/- as a
compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till its realization, therefore, the appellant
shall be entitled for additional amount of compensation of Rs.7,79,900/-
i.e. (15,52,900-7,73,000). The learned Tribunal has awarded the
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, therefore, the appellant shall be
entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on additional amount of
compensation.
13. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal stands
allowed. The respondent no.3/insurance company shall deposit the
additional amount of compensation along with interest within a period of
6 weeks from today. Upon depositing of the said amount of
compensation, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1195/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
compensation along with interest to the original claimants/appellants
herein after due verification. The statutory amount, if any, lying
deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted
to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
14. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
