Gujarat High Court
Chandaben Udesinh Thakor (Solanki) vs Rameshgiri Bachugiri Goswamy on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3259 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHANDABEN UDESINH THAKOR (SOLANKI) & ORS.
Versus
RAMESHGIRI BACHUGIRI GOSWAMY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS MOHINI J BHAVSAR(3071) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal has been preferred by the
present appellants - original claimants under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, directing against the judgment
and award 31.12.2007 passed by the learned M.A.C.T.
(Aux.), 3rd Fast Tract Court, Modasa in M.A.C.P. No.1405
of 1996, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the
petition and directed the original opponent nos.1 to 3 to
pay the amount of Rs.1,87,000/- to the claimants with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till
realization.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Hiren M. Modi for the
appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded the claim to the
tune of Rs.1,87,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. It is
submitted that looking to the documentary evidence as
well as the other evidence, the learned Tribunal has
considered the notional income of the deceased to the
tune of Rs.1,200/- per month, in spite of the fact that the
deceased was working as a conductor and second driver
on the truck bearing registration no. GJ-9-T-6459.
2.1. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not
even considered the future prospective income also, as
per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
reported in (2017)16 SCC 680. It is also submitted that as
per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram reported
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
in 2018 SCC 130, the claimants are entitled to parental
consortium, which has not been awarded by the learned
Tribunal. It is, therefore, submitted that the present
appeal is required to be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.V.C.
Thomas for the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company
submitted that the learned Tribunal, after considering the
oral as well as documentary evidence, has passed the
impugned judgment and award and, therefore, the
present appeal is required to be dismissed.
4. Considering the rival submissions of the learned
advocates for the respective parties and perusing the
impugned judgment and award passed by the learned
Tribunal, the following point come before this Court for
consideration:-
1. Whether the present appellants
prove that the amount awarded by the
learned Tribunal is not proper and
erroneous and is required to be
enhanced or not?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
5. Findings of this Court are as under:-
1. Partly allowed.
2. As per the final judgment and award.
6. The short facts leading to the filing of the present
appeal are that original claim petition being M.A.C.P.
No.1405 of 1996 has been preferred by legal heirs of
deceased - Udesinh Dhoolsinh Thakor (Solanki) i.e.
widow of deceased - Udesinh Dhoolsinh Thakor, two
daughters, two sons and parents of the deceased before
the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Modasa. It is the case
of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that the
husband of the original claimant no.1, father of the
claimant nos.2 to 5 and son of the claimant no.6 was
working as a conductor and second driver of the truck
bearing registration No.GJ-9-T-6459 and was drawing
monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-. On 25.11.1996, when he was
on duty as a conductor of the said truck, the original
respondent no.1 - driver of the truck was driving the said
truck in full speed in rash and negligent manner and at
about 10:30 p.m., when the truck was passing through
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Kapadwanj road, the respondent no.1 - driver lost control
over the steering and the truck turned turtle on the road.
As a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries
and died on the spot. Pursuant to that, an F.I.R. came to
be lodged by the driver of the truck and subsequently, the
legal heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition
before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has
partly allowed the same and awarded sum of
Rs.1,87,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
application till realization. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the same, present appeal has been
preferred.
7. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the
same has already been decided by the learned Tribunal
and the same is not challenged by the other side. So, the
learned Tribunal, in the impugned judgment and award,
has specifically held the original respondent no.1 - driver
of the truck as a sole negligent.
8. Now, so far as the question pertaining to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
quantum of compensation is concerned, in this regard,
both documentary as well as oral evidence have been
produced before the learned Tribunal. The driving license
of deceased - Udesinh was produced vide Exh.38 and the
learned Tribunal has considered the income of the
conductor as Rs.1200/- per month but, considering the
fact that since the accident took place in the year 1996,
the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased at a very lower side and at that time, Rs.1500/-
could easily be assessed as income of the deceased.
Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi (supra), the deceased is entitled to be given
future prospect income. As per the post-mortem note, at
the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 32
years and, therefore, the deceased is entitled for 40%
prospective future income so, the income come around
Rs.2100/-. Further, if there are six family members at the
time of accident, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Transport Corporation & Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121, 1/4th of the income is to be deducted, then looking to
the age of the deceased of 32 years, multiplier of 16 is
required to be applied and as per the judgment in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi (supra) and in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Ram and Others, reported in (2018)18 SCC 130 as well as
another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder
Kaur, reported in (2021)11 SCC 780, the claimants are
entitled to parental consortium to the parents and
children and wife towards the loss of consortium. As per
the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount under
conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% every three
years from the date of the said judgment. Therefore,
considering this, amount of Rs.48,400/- is required to be
awarded towards the loss of funeral consortium and
parental consortium to the claimants @ Rs.48,400/- X 6 =
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Rs.2,90,400/- and wife also required to be awarded
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-
towards funeral expense. So, considering this, the
following calculation can be made.
Particulars Enhancement As per Award
amount
Income 1,500/- 1,200/-
+ Prospective income + 600/- -
@ 40% 2,100/- 1,200/-
(-) Deduction personal 525/- -(1/4) 300/-
expense (multiplier 1/4) _______ ____________
1,575/- 900/-
x 12 months x 12 months
18,900/- 10,800/-
x 16 x 15
3,02,400/- 1,62,000/-
Consortium 2,90,400/- 10,000/-
(48,400x6)
Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Expense Rs.18,150/- Transport -Rs.2000/-
Funeral -Rs.3000/-
Total Rs.6,29,100/- Rs.1,87,000/-
9. Thus, the impugned judgment and award has been
modified to the aforesaid extent amount of claim is
enhanced to Rs.6,29,100/-, which is required to be
awarded to the claimants. As the learned Tribunal has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3259/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
already awarded amount of Rs.1,87,000/-, the amount of
enhancement to the tune of Rs.4,42,100/- be awarded to
the present appellants - original claimants @ 7.5%
interest from the date of an application.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed.
The enhanced amount of Rs.4,42,100/- with interest @
7.5% p.a., from the date of application, be deposited by
the respondent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. After the said amount is deposited, the same shall
be paid to the present appellants - original claimants as
per the award by A/c.Payee cheque on proper verification.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Hitesh
