Gujarat High Court
Shivabhai Ramabhai Prajapati vs Bhikubhai Dolatsang Padhiyar on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3222 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHIVABHAI RAMABHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
Versus
BHIKUBHAI DOLATSANG PADHIYAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been filed against the
impugned judgment and award dated 10.12.2013 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), 5 th (Ad-
Hoc) Additional District Court, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in
M.A.C.P. No. 957 of 2006, whereby the learned Tribunal
partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.
8,10,700/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred
Only) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from
the date of filing the Claim Petition until its realization, as
compensation.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the instant
appeal are summarized as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
i. On 15.08.2006 at about 11:30 p.m., Mr.
Bharatkumar Sivabhai Prajapati (herein after
referred to as "the deceased") along with Mr.
Prajapati Bhogilal Maganbhai was returning home
after performing their duties at Gujarat Ambuja
Exports Limited on a Luna bearing Registration
No. GJ-9-D-6420. The said luna was being driven
by the deceased at moderate speed and on the
correct side of road by observing traffic rules and
regulations. When they were passing through
Motipura to R.T.O. bypass from slope of
Hathmathi river bridge, a Jeep bearing
Registration No. GJ-13-V-1157, being driven by
respondent No.1 herein, came from wrong side of
the road in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed with the luna in which the deceased was
travelling. As a result, both the deceased - driver
of luna and pillion rider, Mr. Prajapati Bhogilal
Maganbhai sustained serious injuries and were
taken to Himatnagar Civil Hospital for treatment.
Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to the
injuries.
ii. It is the case of the original claimants before the
learned Tribunal that at the time of the accident,
the deceased was aged about 30 years and was
gainfully employed with Gujarat Ambuja Exports
Limited and was also doing agricultural and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
animal husbandry work, thereby earning
handsome income from all these sources.
Therefore, the original claimants/appellants
herein preferred the Claim Petition before the
learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the
tune of Rs.12,00,000/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of
the Claim Petition, the respondent No. 3 -
Insurance Company filed Exh.14 - Written
Statement, thereby, denying the averments made
in the Claim Petition in toto, and in brief, prayed
for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties
and the material available on record, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh. 22:-
i. Whether it is proved that the deceased
sustained injuries and died on account of
rashness or negligence in driving on the
part of the driver of the vehicle involved in
the accident ?
ii. What amount, if any, the claimants are
entitled to by way of compensation and
from which of the opponents ?
iii. What order?
v. In order to prove their case, the original
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
claimants/appellants herein led oral as well as
documentary evidence such as:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Exh. No.
Cross Examination of Shivabhai
Ramabhai Prajapati.
2 Affidavit in examination-in-chief and
Narayanbhai Patel.
3 Affidavit in examination-in-chief and
Maganbhai Prajapati
4 Affidavit in examination-in-chief and
Jethalal Gor
5 Certificate of Hansalpur Milk 58
Cooperative Society Ltd.
his employment.
Company Limited.
employment.
occurrence.
deceased.
15 School leaving certificate of the 78
deceased.
16 Copy of the identity card of the 79
deceased for his employment.
deceased for Turner Course.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
opponent No.1
applicant.
20 Disability certificate of the applicant. 87
the applicants.
23 Copy of Insurance Policy of vehicle No. Mark
GJ-13-D-0030 4/4.
vi. The respondents herein have not led any evidence
before the learned Tribunal to prove their case.
vii. Having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and
awarded a sum of Rs. 8,10,700/- (Rupees Eight
Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Only) along
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from
the date of filing the Claim Petition until its
realization, as compensation.
viii. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, original
claimants/appellants herein have preferred the
instant appeal on the ground of quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. R. K. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the original claimants/appellants herein vehemently
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
submitted that, though it has been proved on record before
the learned Tribunal that the deceased was gainfully
employed with Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited and his salary
slip was proved at Exh. 69 (salary slip of the deceased), and
he was also engaged in agricultural work as well as animal
husbandry, thereby earning a handsome amount from all
these sources of income, the learned Tribunal has however,
considered the monthly income of the deceased at very lower
side. He further submitted that the Exh.69 - Salary Slip would
show that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.4,445/-,
however, the learned Tribunal had considered the income of
the deceased from all sources as Rs.3,950/-, which is at lower
side. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has
awarded meagre amounts of compensation under the heads of
Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate, and Funeral Expenses.
Therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and award
is required to be modified to that extent.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 - Insurance Company,
vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly
considered the income of the deceased. He further submitted
that though, at the time of the accident, the deceased was
aged about 30 years and 7 months, the learned Tribunal had
applied the multiplier of "17" in place of "16". He further
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
and award and contended that the present appeal is devoid of
any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused the material
available on record, it is noted that the aspect of negligence
and the age of the deceased are not in dispute. The original
claimants/appellants herein have disputed the income of the
deceased. The appellants had proved the salary slip of the
deceased for the month of July 2006 at Exhibit 69. As per the
said salary slip, the gross monthly income of the deceased at
the time of the accident was Rs. 4,445/-. It is also the case of
the appellants that the deceased was engaged in agricultural
and animal husbandry activities and was earning additional
income from these sources by selling milk to the dairy.
Therefore, according to the appellants, the income of the
deceased was determined by the learned Tribunal at a lower
side. It is settled proposition of law that income means net
income, i.e., Total Salary - Income Tax. Perusal of the salary
slip of the deceased shows that the Basic Pay + Dearness
Allowance amounted to Rs.2,622/-, House Rent Allowance was
Rs.1,323/-, and Medical Allowance was Rs.500/-, making a
total salary of Rs.4,445/-. From this amount of total salary, a
sum of Rs. 315/- was deducted towards Provident Fund, Rs.
20/- towards Professional Tax, Rs. 10/- towards Welfare Fund,
Rs. 4/- towards LWF, and Rs. 500/- towards Loan repayment.
Thus, after making the total deduction of Rs.849/-, the Net
Pay of the deceased would come to Rs. 3,596/- per month. It is
settled preposition of law that the aforesaid deductions are
not required to be deducted from the total salary of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
deceased as only Income Tax and Professional Tax have to be
deducted. Perusal of the salary slip would show that no
amount was deducted on account of Income Tax, therefore,
the total salary of the deceased at the time of the accident
would come to the tune of Rs.4,445/-. Further, it is also on
record that the deceased was engaged in agricultural and
animal husbandry work, thus, considering the totality of facts
and circumstances, the monthly income of the deceased at the
time of accident is determined as Rs.4,500/-.
7. The learned Tribunal had further enhanced the monthly
income of the deceased by 30% on account of the future
prospects of the deceased, however, the same is not in
accordance to the ratio of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 AIR (SC)
3104 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. Thus, in view of the
ratio of the aforesaid judgments, the monthly income of the
deceased is further to be enhanced by 40%, therefore, the
monthly income after adding 40% on account of future
prospects of the deceased would come to Rs.6,300/- per
month (i.e., Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/- (40% of Rs.4,500/-).
8. Further, it is on record that at the time of the accident,
the deceased was survived by four legal representatives, i.e.,
his father, widow and two minor children. Therefore, in view
of the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Sarla
Verma (supra), 1/4th of the monthly income is to be deducted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
on account of the personal expenses of the deceased.
Therefore, after deducting 1/4th of the monthly income on
account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly
income for calculating the loss of dependency would come to
Rs.4,725/- (i.e., Rs.6,300/- - Rs.1,575/- (1/4th of Rs.6,300/-).
9. It is on record that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was aged about 30 years and seven months.
Therefore, he was less than 31 years old at the time of
accident. Hence, multiplier of "17" is rightly applied by the
learned Tribunal for calculating the total loss of dependency.
Therefore, after applying the multiplier of "17", the total loss
of dependency would come to the tune of Rs.9,63,900/- (i.e.,
Rs.4,725/- X 12 X multiplier of "17").
10. It is on record that the deceased was survived by four
legal representatives at the time of the accident. Therefore, in
view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, all
the legal heirs of the deceased would be entitled for
compensation under the head of loss of consortium.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- is awarded under the
head of loss of consortium.
11. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount
under the head of loss of estate. Therefore, the said amount is
to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/- in view of the ratio of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram
(supra).
12. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre
sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. In view
of the settled preposition of law, the said amount of
compensation is enhanced to Rs.18,150/-.
13. Therefore, in view the above discussions, the appellants
shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount
No. (in rupees.)
1. Loss of dependency 9,63,900/-
2. Loss of Consortium (+) 1,93,600/-
3. Funeral Expenses (+) 18,150/-
4. Loss of Estate (+) 18,150/-
5. Total Compensation 11,93,800/-
Compensation awarded by
6. Impugned Judgment and (-) 8,10,700/-
Award dated 10.12.2013.
7. Enhanced amount of 3,83,100/-
compensation.
14. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and
award dated 10.12.2013 has awarded a compensation of
Rs.8,10,700/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the appellants
herein shall be entitled to an additional amount of
compensation of Rs.3,83,100/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty
Three Thousand One Hundred Only). The learned Tribunal has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
awarded the interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The said
rate of interest is maintained and therefore, the original
claimants/appellants herein are entitled to the same rate of
interest on the additional amount of compensation from the
date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
15. In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment
and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent and
accordingly, the captioned appeal stands partly allowed.
16. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest
from the date of filing of petition till its realization, within a
period of six weeks from today. Upon depositing the said
amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire
awarded amount to the original claimants/appellants herein
(deducting deficit court fee, if any), after due verification.
17. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this
Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned.
Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal
concerned. No order as to costs.
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
