Gujarat High Court
Dungarbhai Nathubhai Sagathiya vs Bhupatbhai Premjibhai Chudasama on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 17/11/2025
Pronounced On : 17/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1276 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DUNGARBHAI NATHUBHAI SAGATHIYA & ORS.
Versus
BHUPATBHAI PREMJIBHAI CHUDASAMA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal arises from judgment and award
dated 12th August, 2014 passed in Motor Accident Claims
Petition No. 528 of 2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal ( Auxiliary), Bhavnagar.
2. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal
was pleased to award a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- from all the
opponents, jointly and severely together with interest at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this Claim
petition till claimants along with proportionate cost of the
application.
3. As per the claim petition, the deceased, minor Dharmesh
Dungarbhai Sagathiya, (hereinafter, "the deceased") was
studying at Trapaj in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in 10th
standard. He suffered a vehicular accident on 08.07.2006 at
5'o clock in the evening. It appears that when he was out of
his hostel, he was run over by a mini luxury bus, which
was being driven by Respondent No.1.
4. The challenge to the said judgment and award is only on
the ground of quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
5. Learned advocate Shri Hiren M. Modi appearing for the
appellant has stated that irrespective of the manner of
award of compensation, a bare perusal on certain reported
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of this
Hon'ble High Court, the compensation liable to be awarded
would be Rs. 5,00,000/- as against Rs.2,52,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal. For buttering the said contention, he relied
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
on the judgment in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu
Chand Mahto reported at (2023) 1 SCC 204 and a
subsequent judgment of this Court in R/First Appeal No.
2033/2017, wherein the said judgment of Meena Devi
(supra) has been referred to. Relying on Meena Devi
(supra), it was submitted that in the said case,
compensation payable to minor has been dealt with. It was
submitted that in terms of the said judgment, the notional
income as prescribed in Schedule-II of M.V. Act has been
deemed to be insufficient on account of inflation and
accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the
notional income as Rs.30,000/- and, thereafter, had
proceeded to award compensation in aggregate of
Rs.5,00,000/-, taking into account the applicable
conventional heads as well. It is noteworthy that there, the
age of the child was 12 years. It was submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court also took into account the ratio in
judgments of M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8
SCC 151, where too, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded
in respect of each school-going student drowned in river,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
whilst travelling in a vehicle (bus).
6. Similarly, learned advocate submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was also pleased to consider its decision in
the case of Kishan Gopal versus Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244,
in deciding the case of Meena Devi (supra), where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded a total compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- for a death of a 10 year old child. The learned
Advocate for the appellant further submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Meena Devi (supra) had referred
to the decision in Nagappa versus Gurudayal Singh
reported at (2003) 2 SCC 274, that the Tribunal has power
to award an amount exceeding the amount claimed, if such
compensation is "just" compensation. Ultimately, a sum of
Rs.5,00,000 was also awarded in Meena Devi(supra). The
said judgment has also been followed by this Court in First
Appeal No.2033/2017. It was thus, urged that the
compensation awarded in the impugned judgment and
award may be awarded in aggregate of Rs. 5,00,000/-
thereby, enhancing the compensation to a sum of Rs.
2,48,000/-, (i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- less Rs.2,52,000/-). It was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
thus, urged that the petition may be allowed to the aforesaid
extent.
7. None has appeared for the Respondents No.1 and 2
though they have been served.
8. Learned advocate Ms. Richa Shah, for Mr. Alkesh N.
Shah appearing for Respondent No. 3, submitted that as
such the amount as adjudicated by the Tribunal, is fair and
just and that therefore, there is no reason for enhancement
of the compensation. It was submitted that as such there is
no argument against the manner in which the said
compensation has been computed. In the circumstances, it
was prayed that the said petition may please be rejected.
9. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, this
Court proceeds to decide the present matter in terms of
hearing hereinafter.
10. The only point of determination that arises in the
present appeal is whether the compensation, as awarded by
the Tribunal, is liable to be enhanced? If so, to what extent?
11. Indeed, the Tribunal, whilst awarding compensation to
the tune of Rs. 2,52,000/- has observed that the claimant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
No. 1 has asserted that the deceased was a bright student
and would have taken care of his parents in their old age.
The Tribunal, then noticing that the deceased was 15 years
old student of Class 10th and was not engaged in any
gainful employment, proceeded to award compensation of
Rs. 2,52,000/- in toto. The Tribunal also noticed certain
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and thereafter arrived at a
Pecuniary Loss of Income to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/-. It
also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards Funeral
Expenses. It awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards "Pain,
Shock and Suffering", a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards Loss
of Estate and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards Loss of Love
and Affection.
12. It is in such circumstances that this court has perused
the judgment in case of Meena Devi (supra) as well as the
judgment in First Appeal No. 2033/2017.
13. The relevant paragraph of Meena Devi (supra) is quoted
hereinbelow for the ease of reference:-
"........
12. Thus relying upon the observation, it is said that in place of issuing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
any guidelines for determination of compensation in case of death of a
child, it may be left open to be decided in the facts and circumstances
of each case. In the case of M.S. Grewal1 1, 14 school students died due to
drowning in a river. This Court noticing that the students were belonging
to upper middle class background, however awarded the compensation to the
tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
13. Thereafter in Kishan Gopal 2, a child aged about 10 years died in a road
accident took place on 19.7.1992, this Court made departure from the IInd
Schedule of M.V. Act and accepted the notional income of Rs. 30,000/- in
place of Rs. 15,000/- applying the analogy that the value of rupee has come
down drastically since 1994 when the notional income of Rs. 15000/- was
fixed in IInd Schedule of the M.V. Act. However accepting the notional income
as Rs. 30,000/- and as per the age of the parents i. e. 36 years, the loss of
dependency was calculated applying the multiplier of 15 at Rs.4,50,000/-
and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded under conventional heads awarding
a total sum of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
............
15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child
death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule
of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and
money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd
Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was
treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and as
M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151
Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala (2014) 1 SCC 244; (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184;(2014) 1 SCC
(Cri)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Rs.25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari 3in age group of 10 and 7 years
respectively.
..............
17. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a
Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and
others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was observed that under the M.V. Act,
there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award
compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court
ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts
relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less
valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment
to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.
......"
14. The aforesaid ratio applies squarely to the facts of the
present case whereto a minor, studying in 10th Standard is
the victim of motor vehicle accident. Therefore, applying the
ratio in the facts of the present case, this Court is also
inclined to enhance the compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- in
aggregate. Although, in the facts of the present case, it
appears that the present proceedings are not under Section
163A of the M.V. Act but are under Section 166 of the M.V.
Kurvan Ansari Vs. Shyam Kishor Murmu, reported at (2022) 1 SCC 317; (2022) 1
SCC (Civ) 365; (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Act. However, considering the overall tenor of the judgment
in Meena Devi (supra) as also in the present case, no
distinction can be made out and the victim of present
accident cannot be awarded lesser amount merely because
the proceedings initiated on account of his untimely death
before the Tribunal was initiated under Section 166 of the
M.V. Act.
15. Secondly, as is apparent, the compensation awarded by
Hon'ble Supreme Court as also that in the case of First
Appeal No.2033/2017 is inclusive of the consortium and
under the conventional heads. Thus, no additional amount
under conventional heads ought to be granted, over and
above, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as indicated in previous
portion of this judgment. Considering the overall scenario,
as the overall compensation has been awarded to the tune
of Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation, the enhanced
compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case
would be Rs. 2,48,000/- (Rs. 5,00,000/- less Rs.
2,52,000/-).
16. The aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1276/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the actual deposit with the Tribunal.
17. The said amount shall be deposited by the Respondent
No.3 with the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the
date of availability of signed copy of this judgment. On
deposit of the said amount, the entire amount shall be
disbursed forthwith, without there being any need of
creating further FDRs. The present petition is disposed of as
allowed to the aforesaid extent. The Record and Proceedings
shall be forthwith remitted back to the Tribunal.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
RIYA VISHWAKARMA
