Gujarat High Court
Sumanbai Ramchandra Vani vs Dilipsinh Bhagvansinh Yadav on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3818/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3818 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
SUMANBAI RAMCHANDRA VANI & ANR.
Versus
DILIPSINH BHAGVANSINH YADAV & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
KRUTARTH K DESAI(9662) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 20.12.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux), Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.21 of
2014, 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) Considering the facts of the case and as the issue is in narrow
compass, present appeal is taken up for its final disposal
forthwith.
3) Heard Mr. Hemal. Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants -
original Claimants, Mr. Harsh Vyas, learned counsel for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3818/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
respondent No.1 and Mr. Krutarth Desai, learned Advocate for
respondent - Insurance Company.
4) It is the case of the appellants that on 30.12.2013, when the
deceased Laxmibai Digambar Vani was standing on the road of
Hansol - Vadoli near Aniyadra village, at that time, respondent
No.1 - driver of car bearing registration No.GJ-16-AP-5304 came
in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the deceased,
due to which, the deceased received serious injuries and
succumbed to it. Therefore, the appellants filed Claim Petition
seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced
on record, the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the
claim petition.
5) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal
has not considered minimum wages of prevalent time and also
not properly considered loss of estate due to which loss is
suffered by the appellants.
6) Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company has submitted
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and
proper and no interference is called for.
7) As challenge is given only qua income and loss of estate, 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
30.12.2013 and during that time, the deceased was working as
labourer and as per the Government approved minimum wages
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3818/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
the rate was Rs.5,580/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month which is
required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the deceased
is reassessed as Rs.5,580/- per month. Further, the learned
Tribunal has considered future prospective income as 40% and
as the deceased was married 1/3 deduction as personal
expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 18 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.
8) Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.5,580/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.2,232/- which comes to
Rs.7,812/- and 1/3 amount is required to be deducted as
personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to
Rs.2,604/- and the net amount comes to Rs.5,208/-. In view of
above the amount under the head of future economy loss is
required to be reassessed as Rs.5,208/- x 12 x 18 =
Rs.11,24,928/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.3,18,528/- under the head of future
economic loss.
Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expense, also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss
of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however,
this Court is of the view that the appellants are entitled to get
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expense and Rs.18,150/- towards
loss of estate. Whereas, the deceased was daughter in law of the
appellants hence the appellants are not entitled for any amount
under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the appellants
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3818/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (Rs.3,150/-
under the head of funeral expense and Rs.3,150/- under the
head of loss of estate).
9) As the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.8,36,400/-, however, as discussed above, the appellants
would be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,24,828/-
i.e. Rs.3,18,528/- under the head of future economic loss and
Rs.6,300/- under the head of loss of estate and funeral expense
with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
10) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and
award dated 20.12.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bharuch, stands modified to the aforesaid
extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered.
Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the said
additional amount of Rs.3,24,828/- 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.
11) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
12) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
