Gujarat High Court
Rana Gitaben Dilipsinh vs Tadvi Hareshbhai Mangubhai on 27 November, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 31 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RANA GITABEN DILIPSINH & ORS.
Versus
TADVI HARESHBHAI MANGUBHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KARNA H DHOMSE(6684) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 16.08.2012 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.
2441 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned
judgment") by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara,
Chhota Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal")
whereby, it has awarded compensation of Rs.2,74,000/-
together with interest at the rate of 9%. Being aggrieved, the
captioned appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status in the claim petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
2. Mr.Karna Dhomse, learned Advocate appearing for the
claimants has submitted that the challenge to the impugned
judgment is mainly on three grounds namely the income,
prospective income and the quantum of loss of consortium. It
is submitted that the income of the deceased ought to have
been considered atleast Rs.3,000/- per month considering the
fact that the deceased possessed land bearing survey no. 359
admeasuring 2 acres and 24 gunthas (hereinafter referred to
as "the agricultural land") and was cultivating it. It is
submitted that the farming of banana and seasonal crops was
being undertaken which fact, is strengthened by the evidence
produced on record namely the village form no. 8A and 7/12
forms and they clearly suggest aspect of farming. It is further
submitted that even the bills have been produced of the
relevant years suggesting that the deceased, had purchased
the seeds and the agricultural equipments. Besides, loan was
obtained from the bank for the purpose of farming. It is
submitted that apart from the regular farming the deceased,
was engaged in agricultural activities for seasonal crops and
was earning quiet well. Therefore, it is not correct to consider
that the deceased was earning only a meager amount of
Rs.1200/- per month and Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is fairly
stated that though the claim of income is of Rs.7 lakhs per
year, considering the documents produced on the record, just
and reasonable compensation may be allowed.
2.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of State
of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors. reported in (2003) 7 SCC
484. It is submitted that the facts in the case before the Apex
Court were in close proximity to the facts of the present case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
In the said case, the deceased was possessing almost similar
amount of land and the claim was of Rs.6.5 lakhs. The Apex
Court after considering the merits, was of the opinion that
every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation
has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation
which is the pivotal consideration. That use of the expression
"which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on
the Tribunal and the determination has to be rational, to be
done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims,
wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes
equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-
arbitrariness. If it is not so, it cannot be just. It is therefore
submitted that when all the documents were available
suggesting that the deceased was possessing a huge parcel of
land admeasuring 10,000 and odd sq. mts.; and when farming
activities was also not disputed, awarding only Rs.15,000/- per
annum is not just and reasonable.
2.2 It is further submitted that another ground raised is
about the prospective income. The tribunal has considered
30% instead of 50% and as per applicable principle, the said
consideration, is erroneous. Besides, the loss of consortium
has been allowed only to an extent of Rs.10,000/- which, is
against the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is therefore urged that the
judgment of the tribunal, needs to be modified to the
aforesaid extent.
3. On the other hand, Ms.Hina Desai, learned Advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
appearing for the respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") has
submitted that as such, no error is committed by the tribunal.
It is further submitted that no evidence was led by the
claimants to substantiate the income of Rs.7 lakhs. On the
basis of the material available on record, the tribunal, while
exercising discretion has awarded just compensation which
would fall within the purview of the provisions of the Act and
the principles laid down by the Apex Court.
3.1 It is further submitted that the age of the deceased was
30 years and for the age group of 30-40 years, the prospective
income, cannot be 50% and 30% has rightly been allowed. If
this court deems it appropriate the court may consider
awarding 40% prospective income; the deceased being self
employed. It is further submitted that so far as the loss of
consortium is concerned, in view of the settled principle, the
same may be appropriately modified.
3.2 While concluding, it is submitted that the interest
awaded at the rate of 9%, is on a higher side; however, it is
fairly conceded that the respondent corporation has not
preferred any appeal and accepted the judgment.
4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties. Considered the submissions and perused
the documents and record and proceedings made available.
5. Tersely stated are the facts derived from the record:
6. On 13.10.1997 at around 6:00 p.m., the deceased, was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
traveling in the S.T. bus bearing registration no. GJ-18-V-818.
As the S.T. bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and
with excessive speed it, dashed against the railing of the
bridge and fell into the river. In the said accident, the
deceased sustained fatal, serious bodily injuries. It is not in
dispute that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of
the accident. Motor Accident Claim Petition no. 2441 of 1997
was filed by the claimants seeking compensation for Rs.30
lakhs. The claimants, in support of their claim, have placed
reliance on the revenue record namely the village form no. 8A
and 7/12 forms for the agricultural land possessed by the
deceased, which is a large parcel admeasuring 2 acres and 24
gunthas. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was
engaged in banana farming. In support of this claim,
necessary bills for purchasing the inputs in connection with
the farming activities have been produced on the record.
Besides, there are also documents which suggest that a loan
was obtained from the bank.
7. The appellant claimed that the income of the deceased
was Rs. 7 lakhs and this claim remained uncontroverted in
her cross-examination. However, the fact remains that there is
no evidence produced to support the income of Rs.7 lakhs and
that aspect is recorded in the impugned judgment. The
tribunal therefore rightly concluded that income for the year
1997, could not have been of Rs. 7 lakhs especially in the
absence of any documentary evidence. The tribunal at the
same time was not correct in accepting notional income at the
rate of Rs.15,000/- per annum. Undisputedly, the deceased
possessed large agricultural land. It emerges from the record
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
that other than the land exclusively in the name of the
deceased, the family, was jointly possessing other parcels of
land admeasuring 10 acres. The said aspect, has also
remained uncontroverted. The evidence available on record
namely; the village form no. 8A and 7/12 forms, they very well
provide support to determine the notional income of the
deceased.
8. At this stage, apt would be judgment in the case of State
of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors. (supra) wherein the Apex
Court has observed that the Tribunal constituted under the
Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the
real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be 'just
and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation
for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden
scales. But at the same time it also has be to be borne in mind
that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the
victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a
source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. It has
also been provided that by use of the expression "which
appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested on the
Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a
judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild
guesses and arbitrariness. Relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 are
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted
under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make
an award determining the amount of compensation which is to
be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that
compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in
golden scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in
mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall
for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the
compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a
source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The
Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors
and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be
just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question.
There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for
measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of
damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and
circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if
any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing
compensation has to be considered in the background of "just"
compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by
use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide
discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to
be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the
outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The
expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and
reasonableness, and non- arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be
just. (Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (AIR 1998 SC 3191).
8. It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal's decision as
affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before
the former to prove as to what was the income. As rightly
contended by learned counsel for the appellants, there was
not even any material adduced to show type of land which the
deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a
different angle. The land possessed by the deceased still
remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is however
a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage
persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule
about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to
cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant
circumstances have to be considered. Furthermore, there was
no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figure of
Rs.4500 per month. No reason has been indicated to arrive at
this figure. In the light of what has been discussed above
about "just compensation" the income cannot be estimated
without any material to justify the estimation. In the normal
course, we would have remitted the matter back to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration. But considering the fact that
one young person lost his life, and the matter was pending
before the Tribunal and the High Court for some years, we
feel it appropriate to take all relevant factors into
consideration, and decide the matter. Gauzing the relevant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
aspects, noted above, the monthly income is fixed at Rs.3000/-
per month, and after deducting Rs.1,000/- for personal
expenses, financial contribution so far as the claimants are
concerned is fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month. Worked out on the
basis of multiplier of 18, the compensation is fixed at
Rs.4,32,000/-. The amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal for funeral expenses is not interfered with and thus
the total compensation comes to Rs.4,34,000/-. The rate of
interest i.e. 9% per annum as fixed by the Tribunal and
affirmed by the High Court is appropriate, and does not need
any alteration. After adjusting the sum which was deposited
pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.12.2001, the
balance amount along with interest shall be deposited within
three months from today before the Tribunal. On the deposit
being made along with the amount already deposited, a sum of
Rs.3 lakhs shall be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the
claimants and a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be kept in fixed
deposit in the name of Smt. Baldev Kaur, mother of the
deceased. They shall be entitled to draw interest on the
deposit, which shall be re-deposited for further terms of five
years. In case of urgent need, it shall be open to the claimants
to move Tribunal for release of any part of the amount in
deposit. The Tribunal shall consider the request for
withdrawal and shall direct withdrawal in case of an urgent
need and not otherwise of such sum as would meet the need.
It shall be specifically indicated to the Bank where the
deposits are to be made that no advance or withdrawal of any
kind shall be permitted without the order of the Tribunal. It
shall be open to the claimants to approach the Tribunal for
variance of the order relating to deposit in fixed deposit, if any
other scheme would fetch better returns and also would
provide regular and permanent income. "
9. Pertinently, when there was evidence produced in the
nature of village form no. 8A and 7/12 forms, throwing
sufficient light to substantiate that the farming activities were
being undertaken, the income derived by the tribunal is on a
lower side. Also, the deceased was of a young age of 30 years.
The agricultural land is exclusively in his name and thus in the
absence of any contrary evidence and considering the claim
vis.a.vis the documentary evidence, this court deems it
appropriate to determine the income of the deceased at the
rate of Rs.3000/- per month. The deceased being 30 years of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
age at the time of the accident, 40% prospective income of
Rs.1200/- needed to be added. As per the settled law, the
multiplier would be 16 and permissible 1/4th deduction
deserves to be allowed. So far as loss of consortium is
concerned, it is not in dispute that as per the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi & Ors.(supra), it would be at the rate of
Rs.40,000/- per member of the family. It is reported that one
of the family member, that is the appellant no.4 Mr. Harisinh
Ishwarsinh Rana, father of the deceased, has passed away. In
view of the above, the remaining claimants would be entitled
for the loss of consortium.
10. Before concluding, it may be noted that the contention of
Ms. Hina Desai, learned Advocate appearing for the
respondent- Corporation for reducing the rate of interest
cannot be accepted and is rejected on two grounds namely
that it has not preferred any appeal and secondly, nothing has
been placed on record substantiating that the rate of interest
awarded, was on a higher side.
11. Considering the above referred observations, the
judgment of the tribunal is modified as below:
Sr.no Particulars Amount
1 Monthly income 3000/-
2 Prospective Income 1200/-
4 Total Dependency 4200 x 12 x16 =
Loss 8,06,400/-
5 Deduction (1/4th) 2,01,600/-
8,06,400/- (-)
2,01,600/- =
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/31/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
6,04,800/-
6 Loss of Consortium 40,000 x 4
(dependents)
=1,60,000/-
7 Final amount 7,64,800/-
8 Already awarded 2,74,000/-
amount
9 Enhanced amount 4,90,800/-
10 Interest Rate 9%
12. As per the above calculation, the claimants would be
entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,90,800/-
together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing
of the application. The respondent corporation, is directed to
deposit the entire enhanced awarded amount together with
the interest with the tribunal within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The tribunal
would be at liberty to disburse it in favour of the claimants
after due and proper verification.
13. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. No
order as to costs.
14. Record & proceedings, if any received, be sent back to
the concerned Court, forthwith.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SINDHU NAIR
