Gujarat High Court
Roshaniben Wd/O Decd Ramjanbhai ... vs Junjuharam S/O Balram on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5034/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5034 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
ROSHANIBEN WD/O DECD RAMJANBHAI KASAMBHAI ARAMBHIYA &
ORS.
Versus
JUNJUHARAM S/O BALRAM & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") is filed by the appellants - original
claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
16.10.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxi.), Ahmedabad (for short "learned Tribunal") in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.703 of 2013 whereby the learned Tribunal was
pleased to award compensation of Rs.10,57,125/- to the appellants -
original claimants.
[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal is as follows:
[2.1] On 25.10.2013 at around 4.30 p.m., the deceased Ramjanbhai
Kasambhai Arambhiya (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5034/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
going on his Activa Scooter bearing No.GJ-1-FH-6371 at slow speed
and on the correct side of the road from Jamalpur Cross Roads
towards Paldi and at that time, when he was crossing Jamalpur
Overbridge and reached near the gate of Municipal Health Staff
Quarters, the original opponent No.1 - driver of Eicher Truck No.RJ-
04-GA-2245 dashed on the back side of the Activa Scooter pursuant to
which the deceased was thrown away on the road and the left rear
wheel of Eicher Truck ran over the head of the deceased and
therefore, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and
other parts of the body resulting into his death. After the accident,
the driver of the Eicher Truck ran away from the place of accident. In
this regard, FIR being I-CR No.101/2013 was lodged wth Gaikwad
Haveli Police Station. The legal heirs and representatives of the
deceased filed MACP No.703/2013.
[2.2] After considering the evidence produced on record by the
respective parties, learned Tribunal has been pleased to pass an award
of Rs.10,57,125/- in favor of the original claimants. The appellants
herein - original claimants being aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation have filed the present First Appeal.
[3.0] The coordindate Bench of this Court was pleased to admit the
present First Appeal vide the order dated 19.12.2013. Though served
with the notice of admission, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have chosen not
to appear before this Court. With the consent of learned advocate for
the appellants and learned advocate for the insurance company,
present appeal is taken up for final hearing.
[4.0] Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the
learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.6100/- only though the deceased was a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5034/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
skilled tailor and doing ladies tailoring work and multiple documents
to prove the income of the deceased were produced. Still the learned
Tribunal has ignored the said documents. The learned Tribunal has
only considered minimum wages. Further, the profit and loss account,
pass-book and other income certificates were produced on record and
exhibited and though the documents clearly established that the
deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal has
ignored the said fact and failed to appreciate the oral as well as
documentary evidence produced at Exhs.48 to 57. He has further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded the
compensation under the non-conventional heads. Hence, he has
requested to allow the present first appeal.
[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar appearing for the respondent
No.3 - insruance company has vehemently opposed the present
appeal by submitting that in absence of any evidence qua income of
the deceased, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in
awarding the just compensation and hence, no interference is
required and has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellants and learned
advocate for the insurance company and going through the record, it
appears that on 25.10.2013 at around 4.30 p.m., the deceased was
going on his Activa Scooter bearing No.GJ-1-FH-6371 at slow speed
and on the correct side of the road from Jamalpur Cross Roads
towards Paldi and at that time, when he was crossing Jamalpur
Overbridge and reached near the gate of Municipal Health Staff
Quarters, the original opponent No.1 - driver of Eicher Truck No.RJ-
04-GA-2245 dashed on the back side of the Activa Scooter pursuant to
which the deceased was thrown away on the road and the left rear
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5034/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
wheel of Eicher Truck ran over the head of the deceased and
therefore, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and
other parts of the body resulting into his death. After the accident,
the driver of the Eicher Truck ran away from the place of accident.
Thereafter, an FIR being I-CR No.101/2013 was lodged wth Gaikwad
Haveli Police Station.
[6.1] So far as negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal has held
driver of Eicher Truck to be solely negligent for the accident and so far
as aspect of contributory negligence of the deceased - scooterist is
concerned, decision of learned Tribunal holding the driver of Eicher
Truck liable for the accident is not challenged or disputed and
therefore, learned Tribunal relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in
AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 635 has not committed any error in coming to the
conclusion that the driver of Eicher Truck was solely negligent for the
accident.
[7.0] In order to prove the contents of the claim petition, the affidavit
of appellant No.1 - Roshniben widow of the deceased is produced at
Exh.36 and complaint at Exh.40, panchnama of scene of offence at
Exh.41, driving license of the deceased at Exh.37 and other
documentary evidences namely profit and loss account, balance-
sheets for the financial years 2010-11 to 2012-13 at Exhs.49 to 57
collectively to prove the income of the deceased. Perusing the
documentary evidences, it appears that the deceased was doing his
business in the name and style of Nisaa Designs wherein he was doing
the job work of stitching and cutting work of ladies dresses. At the
time of accident, the deceased was aged 48 years and the said witness
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5034/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
has stated in her evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/-
per month. Further, the accident took place in the year 2013 and the
learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.6100/- for calculating future loss of dependency. Perusing the
evidence produced on record, cross-objection of the said witness as
well as documentary evidences produced on record which are
exhibited with consent on record namely the profit and loss account,
voucher book, pass-book of Dena Bank, pass-book of Bank of Baroda
produced at Exhs.50 and 51 respectively and LIC premium receipt
produced at Exh.52, ICICI Prudential premium receipt produced at
Exh.53 and cerfificate of average billing of Nisaa Designs produced at
Exh.54 and account statements produced at Exhs.55 to 57, it appears
that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the
minimum wages at rate prevailing at the time of accident. Merely
because the deceased did not file the income tax return is not a
ground to consider his income on lower side in view of various
documentary evidences supporting his income were produced on
record before the learned Tribunal. Further, the deceased was a
skilled tailor and was engaged in the job work of tailoring work and as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav
reported in (2022)1 SCC 198, adoption of lowest tier of minimum
wage while computing income by the learned Tribunal is not
justifiable.
[7.1] Considering the attending circumstances, the learned Tribunal
ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.17,000/- to award just compensation. The deceased at the time of
accident was aged 48 years and hence, as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5034/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298,
multiplier of 13 in the age group of 46 to 50 is required to be
considered. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, as the deceased was below 50 years of
age, additional income under the head of future prospective income
at 25% is required to be considered. Hence, 25% of Rs.17,000/- would
come to Rs.4250/- and hence, monthly income of deceased at the time
of accident is required to be considered at Rs.21,250/- to award just
compensation. When the claim petition was filed, there were four
claimants including the mother of the deceased but in the cross-
examination it is admitted by claimant No.2 i.e. son of the deceased
that he is having independent income. The said aspect is not seriously
disputed by the insurance company and the learned Tribunal had
considered dependency at 1/4th. Hence, at this stage, considering no
serious dispute or objection qua dependency, this Court is not
interfering with the said finding of the learned Tribunal. In view of
above, dependency of deceased is considered at 1/4th and therefore,
loss of dependency per month would come to Rs.15938/- [Rs.21,250 -
5312 (1/4 of 21250)] and hence, the appellants - original claimants are
entitled to Rs.15938 x 12 x 13 (multiplier) = Rs.24,86,328/- towards
future loss of dependency. It is needless to say that the learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,92,125/- under the head of future loss of
dependency however, this Court is of the considered view that the
appellants herein - original claimants are entitled to get
Rs.24,86,328/- under the head of future loss of dependency and
therefore, to that extent the impugned judgment and award is
required to be modified.
[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5034/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
partly allowed. The appellants - original claimants are entitled to get
Rs.24,86,328/- under the head of future of loss of dependency and as
the learne Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,92,125/- under the said head, the
respondent No.3 herein - insurance company is directed to deposit
enhanced amount i.e. Rs.15,94,203/- (Rs.24,86,328 - Rs.8,92,125)
alongwith accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with the
learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of the present judgment. The Impugned judgment and award dated
16.10.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxi.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.703 of 2013 is
modified to the aforesaid extent and rest of the impugned judgment
and award remains unaltered.
[8.1] Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the
enhanced amount of Rs.15,94,203/- alongwith the amount lying in
the FDR with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the
original claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after
proper verification and after following due procedure.
[9.0] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid.
[10.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
