Gujarat High Court
Velbai Wd/O Premji Karshan Kerai vs Sidiha Umar Mitya on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 350 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VELBAI WD/O PREMJI KARSHAN KERAI & ANR.
Versus
SIDIHA UMAR MITYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
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 MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been filed against the
impugned judgment and award dated 05.12.2012 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhuj-
Kachchh in M.A.C.P. No. 953 of 1999, whereby the learned
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.2,16,200/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
realization, as compensation.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the instant
appeal are summarized as under:-
i. On 02.08.1999, Mr. Premji Karshan Kerai
(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"),
the husband of appellant No.1 and father of
appellant No.2 was riding his motorcycle and
returning home. When he reached near the
bus stand of Mankuva Village on the road
towards Samatra, the respondent No.1 -
driver of the Truck bearing Registration No.
GJ-12-U-9144 - came driving the said Truck at
a high speed in a rash and negligent manner,
endangering human life and dashed against
the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of
which, the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed thereto.
ii. It is also the case of the appellants that at the
time of the accident, the deceased was aged
about 50 years and was earning Rs.5,000/-
per month from his masonry work.
iii. The notices/summons of the Claim Petition
were duly served on the respondents and
respondent no. 3-Insurance Company filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
Written Statement vide Exh.21, thereby
denied all the averments made in the Claim
Petition and contended for dismissal of the
Claim Petition.
iv. Having considering the pleadings of the
parties and material available on record, the
learned Tribunal had framed the following
issues at Exh. 23 :-
i. Whether the applicants proves that
deceased died due to grievous injuries
sustained in the vehicle accident due to
rash and/or negligent driving on the
part of the driver of the vehicle involved
in the incident?
ii. Whether the Petitioners are/ is entitled
to claim compensation ? If yes, what
amount and from whom ?
iii. What award?
v. Having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidences and material available
on record, and after considering the
submissions of the learned counsels for the
parties, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.2,16,200/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
of the Claim Petition till its realization, as
compensation.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the appellants
herein has preferred the captioned appeal for
enhancement of compensation.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Kirtidev R Dave, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/original claimants submitted that the learned
Tribunal has ascertained the income of the deceased at the
time of accident as Rs.1,800/- per month, which is much
lesser than the rate of minimum wages for a skilled worker.
He further submitted that as per the notification issued by the
State of Gujarat at the relevant point of time, the minimum
wages for a skilled worker was Rs.2,000/- per month,
however, the learned Tribunal had considered the income of
the deceased as Rs.1,800/-, which is lesser than the minimum
wages prevalent at the time of accident. He further submitted
that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of
Rs.10,000/- under the head of Loss of Consortium, a sum of
Rs.5,000/- under the head of Loss of Estate and a sum of
Rs.5,000/- under the head of Funeral Expenses. He further
submitted that the said amount of compensation awarded
under the aforementioned heads is required to be enhanced.
Therefore, the judgment and award is required to be modified
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
to that extent.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3-Insurance
Company submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment and award, therefore, contended that the impugned
judgment and award is liable to be upheld and the instant
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having gone through the material
available on record, it is to be noted that there is no dispute
regarding the factum and manner of occurrence of accident,
the age and occupation of the deceased. The
appellants/original claimants has preferred the instant appeal
for challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to
them by the learned Tribunal. It is the case of the appellants
that at the time of the accident, the deceased was gainfully
engaged as a mason, and thereby, earning Rs.5,000/- per
month. However, in the absence of Proof of Income of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal determined the income of
deceased as Rs.1,800/- per month. It is to be noted that there
is no dispute regarding the occupation of the deceased. In
present case, the accident had occurred on 02.08.1999 and at
the relevant point of time, the minimum wages for such a
skilled worker, as per the Notification issued by the State of
Gujarat, was Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, in the absence
of any proof of income, the learned Tribunal could have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
ascertained the income of the deceased at the rate of
minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed serious
illegality in not considering the income of the deceased as per
the notification of the State of Gujarat on minimum wages.
Therefore, in my considered view, the findings arrived at by
the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and
accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased at the time
of accident is ascertained as Rs.2,000/- per month.
7. Further, it is not in dispute that at the time of accident,
the deceased was aged about 50 years, therefore, the
notional income is to be enhanced at the rate of 25% on
account of the prospective income of the deceased. Therefore,
after adding 25% on account of the future prospects of the
deceased, the monthly income of the deceased would come to
Rs.2,500/- (i.e. Rs.2,000/- + 25% of Rs.2,000/-) per month and
accordingly, the annual income of the deceased would come to
Rs.30,000/- (i.e., Rs.2,500/- X 12).
8. It is not in dispute that the deceased left behind two
legal representatives, i.e., appellants herein, therefore 1/3rd
of the annual income is to be deducted on account of the
personal expenses of the deceased as per the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the
case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104. Thus, after
deducting 1/3rd on account of the personal expenses of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
deceased, the annual income for calculating the loss of
dependency would come to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (i.e.,
Rs.30,000 - 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/-) per annum.
9. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about
50 years, therefore, after applying the multiplier of "13", the
total loss of dependency would come to the tune of
Rs.2,60,000/- (i.e., Rs.20,000 X 13).
10. The learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts
under the head of Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Loss
of Funeral Expenses. Therefore, in my considered view, the
same is required to be enhanced in accordance with the ratio
of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 alias Chuhru
Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Therefore, the
appellants herein shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,150/-
under the head of loss of estate, a sum of Rs.18,150/- under
the head of funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.96,800/- under
the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, in view the above
discussions, the appellants shall be entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount
No. (in rupees.)
1. Future loss of dependency 2,60,000/-
2. Loss of consortium (+) 96,800/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
3. Funeral expenses (+)18,150/-
4. Loss of estate (+) 18,150/-
5. Total Compensation 3,92,300/-
6. Compensation awarded by
Impugned Judgment and (-) 2,16,200/-
Award dated 05.12.2012.
7. Enhanced amount of 1,76,100/
compensation.
11. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and
award, has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,16,200/- 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.1,76,100/- (i.e., Rs.3,92,300 - Rs.2,16,200/-). The learned
Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 8% per
annum. The said rate of interest is maintained, and therefore,
the appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per
annum on the additional amount of compensation.
12. Respondent no.3-Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing
the Claim Petition till its realization within a period of six
weeks from today with the learned Tribunal concerned. On
depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall
disburse the entire amount to the appellants/original
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/350/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
claimants, after due verification, and after deducting
necessary fee, if any, as per Rules.
13. In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment
and award is modified to the aforesaid extent and accordingly,
the captioned appeal is partly allowed.
14. If any amount is lying deposited in the caption appeal
with the Registry of this Court, the same may be transmitted
to the concerned learned Tribunal. Records and Proceedings,
if any, be sent to the concerned learned Tribunal. No order as
to costs.
15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH/ARUN
