Gujarat High Court
Geetaben Rameshbhai Vanzara vs Champusing Chenaji Rupani on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 722 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
GEETABEN RAMESHBHAI VANZARA
Versus
CHAMPUSING CHENAJI RUPANI & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C. MEHTA FOR MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and award
dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), B. K. District, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as
"the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.264 of
2014, the appellant - original claimant preferred present appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. Vishal C. Mehta for and on behalf of Mr. K. K. Thakkar,
learned Advocate for the appellant - original Claimant and Mr. G. C.
Mazmudar, learned Advocate for respondent - Insurance Company.
Perused the original record and proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 11.10.2014 the deceased
Sanjaybhai Rameshbhai Vanzara (who shall hereinafter be referred
to as "deceased")and Jagdishbhai both were going on motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.GJ-8-Q-0590, towards Samdhi and at that time on
Dhuva Road, Near Juna Deesa Canal, the driver of the Jeep bearing
Reg. No.GJ-8-D-7437, came driving the same at a very high and
excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with
the motorcycle of the deceased from wrong side. As a result of
which the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
Therefore, the appellant has filed MAC Petition seeking
compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record
the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim
petition.
4) Learned Advocate Mr. G. C. Mazmudar for the Insurance Company
has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and
no interference is required to call for. With these submissions he
has requested to dismissed the present appeal.
5) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has
committed error in assessing quantum by not considering the
income of the deceased who was 17 years old at the time of
accident and by working as skilled labourer and engaged in a
construction site was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and committed
error by considering notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum.
The learned Tribunal has considered notional income as he was at
the verge of majority and even otherwise as per the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish
Chand, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Baby Sakshi Greola
Vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and Anr, reported in 2024 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
OnLine SC 3692, and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai
Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation - 2025 INSC 1070, as
per which the Hon'ble Supreme Court come to the conclusion and
clarified that when the Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is
concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or
passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be
made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker
in the respective State at the relevant point of time. Considering
the aforesaid fact in the case on hand the learned Tribunal has
considered the notional income of the deceased child at
Rs.15,000/- per annum and the Insurance Company is also failed
to perform obligation and responsibility as party to point out
applicable minimum wages endorsed by the Government. In view of
above at the relevant point of time the rate as per minimum wages
was Rs.4,800/-, hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed
as Rs.4,800/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has
considered future prospective income as 40% and as the deceased
was bachelor ½ deduction as personal expenditure and living of the
deceased 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] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, which are just and proper. However,
the learned Tribunal has also committed error in considering the
multiplier of 15, hence, as per the Sarla Verma (supra), the
multiplier of 18 is required to be considered. Therefore, calculating
the income of the deceased as Rs.4,800/- and future prospect of
40% = Rs.1,920/- which comes to to Rs.6,720/- and ½ amount is
required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the
deceased which comes to Rs.3,360/- and the net amount comes to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
Rs.3,360/-. In view of above the amount under the head of loss of
dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.3,360/- x 12 x 18 =
Rs.7,25,760/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.5,68,260/- under the head of future loss
of income.
6) Further, the learned Tribunal while relying on the judgment of
Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the
three conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that
amount is required to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of
estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.48,400/-
towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount under the three
conventional heads is reassessed as Rs.84,700/-. Therefore, the
appellant is are entitled for additional amount of Rs.14,700/-
under the three conventional heads.
7) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation
computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.1,57,500/- Rs.7,25,760/-
including additional
amount of Rs.5,68,260/-
Loss of Estate & loss Rs.55,000/- Rs.66,550/-
of consortium including additional
amount of Rs.11,550/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Total compensation Rs.2,27,500/- Rs.8,10,460/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.5,82,960/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/722/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
8) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.2,27,500/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.5,82,960/- with
proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
9) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), B. K. District, Palanpur, in MAC Petition No.264 of
2014 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment
and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.5,82,960/-
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.
10) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
11) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
