Gujarat High Court
Lilaben Chimanbhai Rathod vs Akilbhai Sikandarbhai Ghanchi on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4215 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LILABEN CHIMANBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
Versus
AKILBHAI SIKANDARBHAI GHANCHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR Y K GADHIYA, ADVOCATE for Res. No.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for
short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.617/2023, the appellant -
original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for
short).
2) Heard Ms. Pooja Hotchandani, learned Advocate for the appellants -
original Claimants and Mr. Yogi K. Gadhiya, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 26.04.2023, while the deceased
was travelling on Motorcycle bearing No.GJ-07-CL-3397 and when he
reached the place of accident, opponent No.1 came with Eicher
Tempo bearing registration No.GJ-31-T-5977 in rash and negligent
manner and collided with the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased
got serious injuries and succumbed to the same. Therefore, the claim
petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased to get
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the opponents. After
appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.5,23,600/- along with cost and interest
@ 7.5 % p.a.
4) The appeal is filed on limited ground of contributory negligence as
the Tribunal has committed error by holding 15 % negligence on the
part of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal has also not properly
considered the income of the deceased. Therefore, the learned
Tribunal ought to have passed the award for compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- in light of the case of Master Mallikarjun vs.
Divisional Manager, The National Ins. Co. Ltd., reported in (2014) 14
SCC 396.
5) Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded compensation considering the evidence produced on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
record.
6) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, it appears that the deceased was studying and doing labour
work and earning monthly Rs.10,000/-, but without any evidence on
record, the Tribunal has considered Rs.5,000/- p.m., which is required
to be enhanced. 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 evidence of monthly income of the
deceased. In the present case, the accident occurred on 26.04.2023
and during that time, the deceased was working as labourer and as
per the Government approved minimum wages, the rate was
Rs.11,700/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, which is required to be enhanced
and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.11,700/-
per month. Further, the Tribunal has not considered future
prospective income of the deceased. However, this Court is of the
view that, 40 % future prospective income is required to be
considered. As the deceased was bachelor, ½ deduction as personal
expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 18 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which are just and proper.
7) Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.11,700/- and
future prospect of 40% = Rs.4680/- which comes to Rs.16,380/- and
1/2 amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and
living of the deceased which comes to Rs.8,190/- and the net amount
comes to Rs.8,190/-. In view of above, the amount under the head of
loss of future income is required to be reassessed as Rs.8,190/- x 12
x 18 = Rs.17,69,040/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.12,29,040/- under the head of future loss of
income.
8) Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi
(supra) has awarded total Rs.76,000/- 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.300/- (i.e.
Rs.18,150/- - Rs.18,000/- = Rs.150/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.18,150/- - Rs.18,000/- = Rs.150/- towards funeral expenses).
9) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
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.,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the Tribunal has committed
error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium.
However, in view of above judgments, the appellant Nos.2 and 3
being major brothers are not entitled for loss of consortium.
However, appellant No.1 being mother of the deceased is entitled for
Rs.48,400/- towards the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the
amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.48,400/-.
Therefore, the appellant No.1 is entitled for additional amount of
Rs.8,400/- under the head of loss of consortium. So far as the
negligence on the part of the deceased is concerned, learned counsel
for the appellants has not raised any dispute in this regard.
10) As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled to
get compensation computed as under:-
Heads Awarded by the Reassessed by
Tribunal this Court
Future loss of income 5,40,000/- 17,69,040/-
Loss of Estate 18,000/- 18,150/-
Funeral expenses 18,000/- 18,150/-
Loss of Filial consortium to parent 40,000/- 48,400/-
Total compensation 6,16,000/- 18,53,740/-
Deduction under self negligence 92,400/- 2,78,061/-
of the deceased at 15 %
Total compensation after 5,23,600/- 15,75,679/-
deduction of negligence of the
deceased
11) As Rs.5,23,600/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
appellants - original claimants are entitled to get additional amount
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4215/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
of Rs.10,52,079/- (Rs.15,75,679 - Rs.5,23,600/-) with proportionate
costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated
dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.617/2023 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the
judgment and award remains unaltered. It is provided that
respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit such additional
amount of Rs.10,52,079/- 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.
13) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court
fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly. Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
