Gujarat High Court
Thakorbhai Nanjibhai Vankar (Parmar) vs Bhatuk Nishar Ahmed Mohommad Yusuf on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 539 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
THAKORBHAI NANJIBHAI VANKAR (PARMAR) & ANR.
Versus
BHATUK NISHAR AHMED MOHOMMAD YUSUF & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KARNA H DHOMSE(6684) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated
03/09/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxi), Vadodara in MACP No.104 of 2006.
2. Short facts of the claim case are as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
2.1. On 23/12/2005, the deceased of the claim petition was
riding on Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-6-BD-7469 on
the correct side of the road in a very moderate speed. The
opponent no.1 was driving the Truck bearing registration
No.GJ-1-AT-1863 in a high speed and also in rash and
negligent manner on the wrong side of the road. The driver of
the said truck dashed his truck with the motorcycle and
thereby caused an accident and knocked down the deceased.
A complaint about the accident was lodged with the
Chhotaudepur Police Station vide I-CR No.148 of 2005.
2.2. The present appellants-original claimants therefore filed
claim petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents.
2.3. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal
has allowed the claim petition preferred by the present
appellants-original claimants under Section 166 of the Act,
1988 holding the present appellants-original claimants
entitled to an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with simple interest at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of such claim
petition till its actual realization with proportionate costs.
3. This Court vide order dated 19/10/2016 noticing the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants-
original claimants and the grounds raised in the appeal, has
admitted the appeal.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants-original
claimants, while assailing the impugned judgment and award,
has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding inadequate compensation to the claimants and has
failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true
perspective. It is contended that the learned tribunal has not
appreciated the fact the deceased had a very bright future
ahead and would have earned much more amount than what
has awarded by the learned Tribunal. is also contended that
the Tribunal has overlooked the settled principles of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the
assessment of the amount of compensation in the present
case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate appearing for respondent no.3-
Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the learned
Tribunal, after appreciating the materials available on record,
awarded the compensation and hence the same is not
required to be interfered and lastly prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties on the issue involved in the matter in narrow compass
and perused impugned judgment and award, more
particularly, the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal
while considering the issue of quantum of compensation.
7. In the present case, the deceased was aged 16 years at
the time of the accident. The present appellants-claimants
are the parents of the deceased.
8. It is required to be noted here that the Apex Court in
case of Meena Devi vs. Nanu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand
Mahto reported in 2022 AIJEL-SC-69946, relying upon
several reported decisions cited therein, awarded
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants. While doing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
so, the Apex Court, from para-12 to para-14 of the said
decision, has observed as under:
"12. 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 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 Rs.25,000/- in Kurvan
Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years
respectively.
13. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments,
looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12
years, the principles laid down in case of Kishan Gopal
(supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present
case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the
deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant
student and studying in a private school. Therefore,
accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including
future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view
of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the
loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add
Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of
compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the
judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs.
1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court
enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim
Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is
not just and reasonable looking to the computation made
hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total
compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the
amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-,
the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
"14. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
274, it was observed that under the MV 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."
9. On the strength of the above cited judgment of the Apex
Court in case of Meena Devi (supra), applying the same
principle with grater force, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present appellants-claimants deserve similar
treatment.
9.1. Accordingly, considering notional earning of Rs.30,000/-
including future prospect and applying multiplier of 13 in view
of the decision in case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121, loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,90,000/- and
adding Rs.50,000/- in conventional heads, total amount of
compensation would come to Rs.4,40,000/- under all heads
which is just, proper and reasonable.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
03/09/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxi), Vadodara in MACP No.104 of 2006 is hereby modified.
The appellants-original claimants are held entitled to receive
total compensation of an amount of Rs.4,40,000/-.
11. Since by the impugned judgment and award the learned
Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,00,000/-, the said amount
shall be deducted from the total compensation now
determined. Accordingly, the appellants-claimants shall be
entitled to receive enhanced amount of compensation to the
tune of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual
realization. The respondents-original opponents are held
jointly and severally liable to pay such enhanced amount of
compensation with proportionate costs and interest.
12. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited with the
concerned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date
of receipt of the present order. On deposit of the aforesaid
amount, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release and
disburse the entire award amount in favour of the original
claimants, after due verification as per the original judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/539/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
and award.
13. Let, such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal strictly
in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in this regard; preferably within a period of
two weeks from deposit of such amount. The Tribunal is
directed to realize the deficit Court fees before proceeding
with the disbursement of the amount.
14. R&P be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if
received.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
