Gujarat High Court
Rathod Pabubhai Alias Babubhai ... vs Maknojiya Ibrahimbhai ... on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4293/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4293 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
RATHOD PABUBHAI ALIAS BABUBHAI LUMBABHAI ADIVASI & ORS.
Versus
MAKNOJIYA IBRAHIMBHAI VALIMAHAMMADBHAI & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
RAJAT R GADHVI(9438) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR.KRUTIK A PARIKH(7268) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 18.09.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Palanpur, Banaskantha District (hereinafter
referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.91 of 2018, 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) Heard Mr. R. R. Gadhvi, learned Advocate for the appellants -
original Claimants and Mr. K. A. Parikh, learned Advocate for
respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record and
proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4293/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 05.04.2018, deceased
Bhojabhai @ Fojabhai @ Babubhai Rathod (who shall hereinafter be
referred to as "deceased") was driving his motorcycle on correct
side of the road and at moderate speed and at that relevant time
from the opposite direction one Tractor coming at excessive speed
dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased resultantly leading the
occurrence of the accident. The deceased sustained serious injuries
and later he succumbed to his injuries. Therefore, the appellants
had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the
evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to
partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has
not considered minimum wages of prevalent time and also not
considered consortium to each appellants due to which loss is
suffered by the appellants.
5) As challenge is given only qua income and consortium 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 05.04.2018 and during that
time the deceased was doing agriculture work and masonry work
and as per the Government approved minimum wages the rate was
Rs.7,900/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which is required to be
enhanced and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4293/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Rs.7,900/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has
considered future prospective income as 25% and as the deceased
was 40 years old and having 11 dependents 1/5 deduction as
personal expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 15
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.
6) Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.7,900/-
and future prospect of 25% = Rs.1,975/- which comes to to
Rs.9,875/- and 1/5 amount is required to be deducted as personal
expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.1,975/-
and the net amount comes to Rs.7,900/-. In view of above the
amount under the head of loss of future dependency income is
required to be reassessed as Rs.7,900/- x 12 x 15 =
Rs.14,22,000/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.3,42,000/- under the head of future loss
of dependency income.
7) Further, the learned Tribunal by 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. Therefore, the appellants -
original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/-
(i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral
expenses).
8) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4293/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram,
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao
Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company
Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned Tribunal
has committed error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium, however, in view of above judgments the appellants -
original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased they are
entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of
consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is
reassessed as Rs.5,32,400/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 11). Therefore, the
appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.4,92,400/-
under the head of loss of consortium.
9) As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled
to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of future Rs.10,80,000/- Rs.14,22,000/-
dependency income including additional
amount of Rs.3,42,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.5,32,400/-
including additional
amount of Rs.4,92,400/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 11)
Total compensation Rs.11,50,000/- Rs.19,90,700/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.8,40,700/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4293/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
10) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.11,50,000/- (due to arithmetical mistake the Tribunal has
mentioned Rs.11,20,000/-), however, as discussed above the
appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.8,40,700/-
(Rs.19,90,700/- - Rs.11,50,000/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated
18.09.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux.), Palanpur, Banaskantha District, in MAC Petition No.91 of
2018 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment
and award remains unaltered. The respondent no.2 - Insurance
Company shall deposit the said additional amount of
Rs.8,40,700/- 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.
12) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
13) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
