Gujarat High Court
Manjulaben Kiranbhai Dhodia vs Deepak Alias Kishorbhai Motibhai Patel ... on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1711/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1711 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MANJULABEN KIRANBHAI DHODIA & ORS.
Versus
DEEPAK ALIAS KISHORBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL KOLI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated
27/02/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Surat in MACP No.598 of 2009.
2. Short facts of the claim case are as under:
2.1. On 01/05/2005, at about 9:00 a.m., the son of appellant
no.1 namely Sanjaybhai Kiranbhai Dhodia was going to some
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1711/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
social function by driving motorcycle bearing registration
no.GJ-5-BK-4820 in moderate speed and in correct side on the
road and when he reached the place of accident, respondent
no.1 came driving tempo truck bearing registration no.GJ-5-Z-
727 in wrong side and in rash and negligent manner with full
speed and dashed with the motorcycle of said Sanjaybhai.
Due to said collision, said Sanjaybhai sustained serious
injuries and during the treatment, he died.
2.2. The appellants-original claimants therefore filed claim
petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/
against the respondents.
2.3. Vide the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the
appellants-original claimants under Section 166 of the Act,
1988 holding the appellants-original claimants are entitled to
an amount of Rs.3,21,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its
actual realization with proportionate costs.
3. This Court vide order dated 31/07/2013, noticing the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants-
original claimants and the grounds raised in the present
appeal, has admitted the appeal.
4. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants-original claimants has submitted that the Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1711/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
has committed an error in awarding inadequate compensation
to the claimants and has failed to appreciate the evidence on
record in its true perspective. He has further submitted that
the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the
deceased and has overlooked the settled principles of law in
relation to the assessment of other conventional heads also.
4.1. Learned advocate has assailed the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the
Tribunal has wrongly considered income of the deceased as
Rs.3,000/- per month only without appreciating the evidence
produced on record.
4.2. Learned advocate has submitted that considering the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, considering the age of the
deceased at the time of the accident, future prospects of
income is required to be taken into consideration.
4.3. Learned advocate has submitted that loss of consortium
is required to be granted in view of the fact that the deceased
was having three dependents and therefore, they are entitled
to get amount of compensation towards loss of consortium in
light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhur Ram & Ors reported in (2018)18 SCC 130. He has
therefore urged to enhance the amount of loss of consortium
accordingly.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1711/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
4.4. Learned advocate has submitted that the amount
awarded under various conventional heads are also on the
lower side. Learned advocate has therefore submitted that
the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not just,
fair, and reasonable and it is required to be enhanced in
accordance with the settled legal principles.
4.5. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate
for the appellants-original claimants has urged this Court to
enhance the amount of compensation accordingly which may
be awarded from the date of filing of claim petition till its
actual realization.
5. Despite service, none appears on behalf of respondent
nos.1 and 2. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya appearing
for respondent no.3 is not present. As it is an old appeal of
the year 2013 and listed for final hearing, this Court is not
inclined to adjourn the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, this
Court has decided to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the
material available on record and on merits.
6. Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellants
and perused the impugned judgment more particularly the
findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while
considering the issue of quantum of compensation as well as
the record and proceedings.
7. As regards the submissions made by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1711/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
advocate for the appellants-original claimants on the issue of
assessment of the income is concerned, the Tribunal has not
committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased
and the same is appearing to be appropriate as it appears that
the same is considered after appreciating material evidence
on record and considering 21 years of age of the deceased at
the time of the accident. As per the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% prospective
income is required to be considered as age of the deceased
was 21 years at the time of the accident. Further, noticing
the fact that the age of the deceased was 21 years at the time
of accident, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121 and the schedule prescribed, multiplier of 18 would be
just and proper. Further, in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants
would be entitled to enhance amount of compensation under
the head of loss of consortium also which would come to
Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- x 2). Lastly, the amount to be
awarded under the conventional heads, more particularly,
funeral expenses (Rs.18,150/-) and the loss of estate
(Rs.18,150/-) is also required to be reconsidered in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
(supra).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1711/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
8. Therefore, original claimants - appellants herein are
entitled to receive enhanced amount of compensation as
computed hereunder:
Compensation As per award under As awarded by this
challenge (Rs.) Court (Rs.)
Income at the time Rs.3,000/- Rs.3,000/-
of the accident.
Future prospects - 40% = Rs.3,000/- x
40% = Rs.1,200/-.
Deduction of ½ ½
personal expenses Rs.2,100/- =
(Rs.4,200/- x ½ )
Loss of future Rs.3,06,000/- Rs.4,53,600/-
income
Loss of consortium - Rs.96,800/-
(Rs.48,400/- x 2 =
Rs.96,800/-)
Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.18,150/-
Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.18,150/-
Total Rs.3,21,000/- Rs.5,86,700/-
Compensation
Enhanced - Rs.5,86,700/- -
compensation Rs.3,21,000/- =
Rs.2,65,700/-)
9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and
award dated 27/02/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Surat in MACP No.598 of 2009 is hereby modified.
The appellant-original claimant is held entitled to total
compensation of an amount of Rs.5,86,700/-. The
compensation amount exceeds the original claim amount,
which was Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, in view of the judgment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1711/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Naggappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. 2003 ACJ 12, the
compensation should not be restricted to the amount claimed
and it is required to award just compensation which is
reasonable and in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the
claimants are entitled to receive the compensation more than
the amount which was claimed in the tribunal. Since by the
impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded an
amount of Rs.3,21,000/-, the appellants shall be entitled to
receive enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,65,700/- with interest on enhanced amount of
compensation at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of
claim petition till its actual realization. The respondents -
original opponents are held jointly and severally liable to pay
such enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate
costs and interest.
10. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited with the
concerned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date
of receipt of the present order. On deposit of the aforesaid
amount, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release and
disburse the entire award amount in favour of the original
claimant, after due verification as per the original judgment
and award.
11. Let, such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal strictly
in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in this regard; preferably within a period of
two weeks from deposit of such amount. The Tribunal is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1711/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
directed to realize the deficit Court fees before proceeding
with the disbursement of the amount.
12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
tribunal forthwith, if received.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
