Gujarat High Court

Gelabhai Valabhai Parmar vs Devilal Narsinh Rabari on 20 November, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/3055/2014                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3055 of 2014


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

                      ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                     Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                             GELABHAI VALABHAI PARMAR & ANR.
                                                          Versus
                                              DEVILAL NARSINH RABARI & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
                      MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                      RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

                                                         Date : 20/11/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned

judgment and award dated 25.04.2014 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Gandhidham Kachchh in Motor

Accident Claim Petition No.254 of 2000, whereby the learned

Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a

sum of Rs.2,29,000/- as a compensation along with the interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

petition till its realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal is that

on 21.05.2000 at about 06:15 in the morning, the deceased was

returning from his work and when he reached at Crossings of

Nanda Road, in the meantime, the respondent No.1 came with

his truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-V-4352 in rash and

negligent manner at a very excessive speed and hit the son of the

appellants. The son of the appellants sustained the grievous

injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of

the appellants that at the time of accident, their son was aged

about 20 years and he was earning Rs.5,000/- as a labourer in

the company of salt. Therefore, they claimed a total

compensation of Rs.7,60,000/-.

3. On being served, the respondent No.3- Insurance

Company filed written statement at Exh-18, thereby denying the

averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of

the claim petition.

4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned

Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh-20:-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

"1. Whether petitioners prove that deceased sustained injuries and died due to injuries which were received in an accident occurred on date 21.05.2000 by rash and negligence act of the driver of Truck No.GJ-1-V-4352, opponent No.1 during his/their employment with opponent No.2?

2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled to get compensation from the opponents or any of them? If yes, what amount and from whom?

3. What Award?"

5. In order to prove his claim, the appellants herein led

following oral as well as documentary evidences before the

learned Tribunal:-

                       Sr       Particulars                                     Exhibit
                       No.

1. Affidavit in examination-in-chief of 22 Babubhai Rupabhai Harijan

2. Affidavit of Gelabhai Valabhai 27 Parmar

6. Insurance Policy of the offending 26 truck

8. Driving license of the driver of the Mark-45/1 offending truck

6. The respondents have not led any evidence either oral or

documentary before the learned Tribunal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

7. Having considered the evidences on record, the learned

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a

sum of Rs.2,29,000/- as a compensation along with the interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till realization.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and award, the original claimants/appellants herein

preferred the captioned appeal on the ground of quantum.

9. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

10. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of

the original claimants/appellants, submitted that at the time of

accident the deceased/son of the appellants was gainfully

employed in the company of salt and thereby earning a sum of

Rs.5,000/- per month. He further submitted that the age of the

deceased was 22 years, however, the learned Tribunal has

considered the multiplier of 8 in accordance to the age of the

parents. He further submitted that considering the age of the

deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the

multiplier of 18 in place of 8. He further submitted that the

learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.10,000/-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

under the head of loss of estate and loss of consortium and a

meager amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of funeral

expenses. He further submitted that the award is required to be

modified in accordance to the settled proposition of law as laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma & Ors Vs.

Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 (06) SCC 121,

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi, reported

in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance

Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram reported in

2018 (18) SCC 130. He further submitted that the award is

required to be modified to that extent.

11. On the other hand Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, vehemently

submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment

and award. He further submitted that the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

12. Having considered the submissions of the learned

advocates for the parties and having gone through the record, it

is on record that the negligence has not been disputed and also

there is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

learned Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased at

Rs.3,000/-. The said income has not been challenged by the

appellants. The learned Tribunal has also enhanced the income

by 50% on account of future prospects of the deceased. In the

case of Sarla Varma (Supra), the Apex Court allowed the

enhancement of 40% if the deceased is not a Government

employee. In the present case, the deceased was working in a

salt company, therefore, the notional income is required to be

enhanced by 40% in place of 50%. Therefore, after considering

the future prospects of the deceased, the notional income is

enhanced by 40%. Therefore, the notional income after adding

the 40% to the monthly income, the monthly income would come

to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000 x 40%). It is not in dispute

that at the time of accident, the deceased was unmarried,

therefore, 50% of the monthly income is required to be deducted

on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after

deducting 50% of the notional monthly income, the net monthly

income for determining the future loss of dependency would

come to Rs.2,100/-. It is not in dispute that at the time of

accident the deceased was aged about 22 years, therefore, the

learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18.

However, in place of 18 the learned Tribunal has applied the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

multiplier of 8 in accordance to the age of the parents of the

deceased. Thus, in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by

the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) and Pranay

Shethi (Supra), the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied

and accordingly, the future loss of dependency would come to

Rs.4,53,600/- (2100 x 12 x 18). The learned Tribunal has

awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- under the head of loss of

dependency, therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.4,53,600/-.

13. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-

under the head of loss of estate and loss of consortium. It is on

record that the deceased was survived by his parents and both

the parents are entitled to get the compensation under the head

of loss of consortium. Accordingly, in view of the ratio of the

judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay

Shethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (Supra) a sum

of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate and a

sum of Rs.96,800/- is awarded under the head of loss of

consortium to both the parents. The learned Tribunal has also

awarded a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of

funeral expenses. The same is required to be enhanced to

Rs.18,150/- in accordance to the ratio of the judgment rendered

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (Supra) and

Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (Supra).

14. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the appellant shall

be entitled for the following amount of compensation under the

following heads:-

                                                      Particulars                         Amount (Rs.)
                          Loss of dependency                                                     4,53,600/-
                          Loss of consortium                                                        96,800/-
                          Loss of estate                                                            18,150/-
                          Funeral Expenses                                                          18,150/-
                                                                                Total            5,86,700/-
                                       Less: compensation already awarded                        2,29,000/-
                                                                       Enhancement              3,57,700/-

15. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,29,000/-

as a total compensation on account of death of the son of the

appellants. In view of the above discussions, the said amount of

compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,86,700/-. Therefore, the

appellants shall be entitled for an additional amount of

compensation of Rs.3,57,700/- (Rs.5,86,700/- -(less)

Rs.2,29,000/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at

the rate of 9%. The said rate of interest is not required to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3055/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

undefined

interfered. Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled for the