Gujarat High Court
Meeraben W/O Nanjibhai Maheshwari vs Chetanram Khemaram Chaudhari on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/940/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 940 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MEERABEN W/O NANJIBHAI MAHESHWARI & ORS.
Versus
CHETANRAM KHEMARAM CHAUDHARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR.KISHAN PRAJAPATI(7074) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 30.09.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal (Auxiliary),
Gandhidham at Kutch in MACP No.615/2008, whereby the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.3,81,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal are that on
27.12.2008 at about 21:00 am, Nanjibhai Jumabhai Maheshwari was
going towards Tagore Road from water tank after completing
Sunderpuri Bazar work, in the meantime, respondent no.1 herein came
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/940/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
by driving a truck bearing registration no.GJ-12-Y-7162 in rash and
negligent manner at excessive speed and caused the accident. In the
said accident, Nanjibhai Jumabhai Maheshwari sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of the
appellants before the learned Tribunal that the accident has occurred
owing to the sole negligence of respondent no.1/driver of the truck. At
the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years and was
earning Rs.6,000/- per month by running camel cart.
3. On being served, the respondent no.3/insurance company has
filed the written statement at Exh.15, thereby denying all the averments
made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the the evidence on record, the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.3,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the appellants herein challenged the award on the point of
quantum.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. Mr. Vishal C. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has not
considered the prospective income of the deceased. He further
submitted that it is not disputed that at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged about 42 years, therefore, the monthly notional
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/940/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
income ought to have been enhanced by 25% on account of the future
prospects of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has awarded the meager amount under the heads of loss of
consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore, the
compensation awarded under these heads are also required to be
enhanced in accordance to the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
Ors., reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company vehemently
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and
award. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
negligence, age and income are not disputed. The learned Tribunal has
determined the income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per month;
however, the learned Tribunal has not enhanced the income on account
of future prospects of the deceased. It is not in dispute that at the time
of accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years, therefore, in view
of the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), the 25% of the notional income is to be added on
account of future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, after adding
25% to the monthly income of Rs.3,000/-, the total monthly notional
income for calculating the loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,750/-
i.e. (3,000+3,000X25%). It is not in dispute that at the time of accident,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/940/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
the deceased was survived by five claimants. Therefore, ¼ of the
monthly income is required to be deducted on account of the personal
expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting ¼ of the monthly
notional income, the monthly income for calculating the loss of
dependency would come to Rs.2,813/- i.e. (3,750-3,750X1/4). it is on
record that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 42
years, therefore, the multiplier of 14 is required to be applied. Therefore,
after applying the multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency would
come to Rs.4,72,584/- i.e. (2,813X12X14). The learned Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of consortium
though, it is on record that the deceased was survived by her widow
and four minor children. Therefore, all the claimants/appellants are
entitled for loss of consortium in accordance to the ratio of judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram
(supra). Thus, a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- is awarded under the head of loss
of consortium to all the five appellants.
10. It is on record that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and a sum of
Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of estate. The compensation
awarded under these heads also required to be modified in view of the
ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra). Accordingly, a
sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses and
a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate.
11. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the appellants shall be
entitled for the following compensation under the following heads:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/940/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Loss of dependency 4,72,584/-
2. Loss of consortium 2,42,000/-
3. Loss of estate 18,150/-
4. Funeral expenses 18,150/-
Total 7,50,884/-
12. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,81,000/-,
therefore, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the additional
compensation of Rs.3,69,884/- i.e. (7,50,884-3,81,000). The learned
Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The said
rate of interest is maintained and accordingly, the appellants/claimants
shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the
additional amount of compensation.
13. In view of above discussions, the captioned appeal stands
allowed partly. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest within
a period of four weeks from today. Upon depositing of the said amount,
the learned Tribunal shall disburse the said amount, after deducting
deficit of Court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any,
lying deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be
transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. No order as to
costs.
14. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
