Gujarat High Court
Naniben Wd/O Chandulal Vajabhai Jadav vs Takhatsinh Mansinh Jadav on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 305 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NANIBEN WD/O CHANDULAL VAJABHAI JADAV & ANR.
Versus
TAKHATSINH MANSINH JADAV & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal arises from the impugned judgment
and award dated 20.10.2014 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahal at Godhara
in MACP No.1426 of 1998.
2. By way of the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal
was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and award a
sum of Rs.1,65,400/- along with the proportionate costs
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till its actual realization.
3. The accident in question involved one Ramanbhai
Chandubhai Jadav who was alleged to be of 29 years of age
at the relevant point of time. It appears that the said Mr.
Ramanbhai Jadav was out to attend a call of nature on
27.05.1998, walking on the left side of the road. At that
time, at about 6:30 in the evening, a Truck bearing
registration no. GRW/458, being driven by the opponent
no.1, came from behind and collided with the said
Mr.Ramanbhai Chandubhai Jadav. As a result of the said
accident, the said Mr. Ramanbhai Jadav sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries within
an hour of the accident.
4. By way of the present Appeal, only the findings from the
impugned judgment and award pertaining to the quantum
have been challenged before this Court. It may be noted
that vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal
has been pleased to attribute 100% negligence to the
opponent no.1, who was driving the Truck involved in the
accident.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
6. The learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi, appearing for the
appellants-original claimants, who had initiated the
concerned claim petition proceedings, submitted that the
heirs are respectively the mother and brother of the
deceased. It was submitted that appropriate evidence was
led by these individuals and that it was alleged that the
deceased was a skilled carpenter and was earning a sum of
Rs.4,500/- per month. It was submitted that in that count,
the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.2,000/-. It was fairly considered by the
learned advocate for the appellant that qua the said
findings i.e, Rs.2,000/- per month being the income of the
deceased, there is no objection. However, it is submitted
that insofar as the future prospects are concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded 30%. It was submitted that in the
present proceedings, the age of the deceased was 29 years.
It was also submitted that there is no evidence except the
Post-Mortem Note at Exhibit-22 indicating the age of the
deceased. It was submitted that in the said Post-Mortem
Note at Exhibit-22, the age of the deceased has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
described as 26 years. However, it was submitted that as
per the impugned judgment and award, the age of the
deceased has been taken to be of 29 years. He, however,
submitted that irrespective of the age either being 29 years
or being 26 years, for all practical purposes, the multiplier
remains unchanged. In any case, it was submitted before
this Court that as per the deposition of one Mr.
Jayantibhai Chandubhai Jadav at Exhibit-32, he has
deposed that the deceased was of 29 years of age. It was
thus submitted that this Court may take the age of the
deceased to be of 29 years. It was submitted that in the
circumstances, in terms of the ratio in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported at 2017 (16)
SCC 680, the applicable future prospects to the deceased
would be to the tune of 40%. He thus submitted that the
Tribunal, while holding the future prospects at 30%, has
committed an errors and interference in this behalf by this
Court may kindly be made.
7. It was next submitted that so computed, i.e., adding 40% to
the amount of Rs.2,000/-, being the monthly income, the
monthly income for the purpose of deciding the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
matter shall have to be taken at Rs.2,800/- per month
(Rs.2,000/- + 40% of Rs.2,000/-). It was further submitted
that insofar as the deduction of the personal expenses to
the tune of 50% is concerned, the Tribunal has correctly
deducted one half of the income of the deceased.
Thereafter, the income will have to be multiplied by 12 so
as to come at the multiplicand. It was next submitted that
the Tribunal has committed another error by deiciding the
multiplier in the present case to be based on the age of the
mother of the deceased. It was submitted that the same
may be corrected and accordingly, it was urged that taking
the age of the deceased to be either 26 years or 29 years,
the applicable multiplier would be 17. Accordingly, he
urged this Court to compute the loss of dependency
applicable to the present case.
8. It was submitted that in the present case, the present
appellants, who were the original claimants, are
respectively the mother and brother of the deceased. The
learned advocate during the course of the argument has
indicated that he is not pressing for consortium amount in
respect of the claimant no.2, (the appellant no.2 herein),
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
the said appellant no.2 being the brother of the deceased.
It was submitted that as such, the brother of the deceased
would not be entitled to the loss of consortium, and
therefore, the amount of consortium may kindly be paid,
only to the mother of the deceased. However, it was
submitted that no amount under the head of loss of
consortium appears to have been awarded to the mother of
the deceased. Instead, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the
loss of love and affections has been awarded by the
Tribunal. He, thus, submitted that instead of the amount
under the head of loss of love and affection, loss of
consortium to the tune of Rs.48,400/- may kindly be
awarded to the mother of the deceased. He next submitted
that insofar as the funeral expenses is concerned, as per
the recent case-laws, a sum of Rs.18,150/- may kindly be
awarded towards the funeral expenses. He further
submitted that insofar as the loss of estate is concerned,
no amount under the head of the loss of estate has been
awarded by the Tribunal. He, thus, urged this Court that
under the said head also, a sum of Rs.18,150/- may kindly
be awarded. He next submitted that insofar as the interest
is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
of 9% per annum. It was submitted that as the impugned
judgment and award has not been challenged by the
Insurance Company, the said rate of interest may kindly be
maintained insofar as the enhancement, if any, which may
be awarded by this Court.
9. Though the matter was called out, no one has appeared on
behalf of the respondent no.1. On perusal of the record, it
appears that the said respondent has not caused any
appearance either personally or through advocate, despite
the Rule in the matter having been served on to them.
10. Insofar as the learned advocate for the respondent no.3 -
Insurance Company, i.e., United India Insurance Company
Limited, Mr. M R Prajapati for the learned advocate Mr. V C
Thomas, has submitted that as such, if the monthly
income of the deceased is not even sought to be disturbed
by the other side, by and large, he does not have any
objection to the enhancement sought by the learned
advocate for the appellant, for the reason that the said
enhancement are in tune with the applicable case laws to
the facts in the present matter. He has, thus, urged this
Court to consider the arguments of the learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
for the appellant and pass appropriate order. He however
submitted that the interest rate, as awarded by the
Tribunal, is 9%, which is not in sync with the applicable
banking interest rate prevalent as on date. He, thus,
submitted that the interest rate of 9% as provided in the
impugned judgment and award by the Tribunal may kindly
be revised to the rate of 7.5%.
11. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present Appeal in
terms appearing hereinafter.
12. The point of determination that arises before this Court in
the present matter is whether the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is fair, just and reasonable? If not, what
would be the just, fair and reasonable compensation is
liable to be awarded in the present facts and
circumstances of the case?
13. At the outset, as such the learned advocate for the
appellant has not contended for increase in the monthly
income of the deceased. Hence, this Court is not inclined to
interfere in the same. Even otherwise, for a carpenter, who
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
does not have any proof of income in the year and who was
passed away in the year of 1998, the monthly income is
fairly judged by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month.
However, this Court finds that subsequently, in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), the award of future prospects income
has been standardized and as per the ratio in Paragraph-
59.4 of the Pranay Sethi (supra), the future prospects of
income liable to be awarded in the present case would be
to the tune of 40%. As such, the deceased is 26 years of
age in terms of the Post-Mortem Note and in terms of the
affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exhibit-32, is alleged to
be of 29 years at the time of the accident. In either case,
i.e., whether the deceased is held to be as 29 years of age
or to be as 26 years of age, there is no change in awarding
of future prospects in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra).
Accordingly, this Court holds that the future prospects
liable to be awarded in the present case would be to the
tune of 40%. And for abundant caution, the relevant
paragraph i.e., Paragraph-59.4 of the Pranay Sethi (supra)
reported at 2017 (16) SCC 680, is quoted hereinbelow for
the ease of reference:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
"(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component."
Moving on, once 40% future prospects of income is
applied, the monthly income would be enhanced to
Rs.2,800/-.
14. Insofar as the deduction of personal expenses is
concerned, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the
monthly income of the deceased. However, as the monthly
income itself has increased from that which has been
stated in the impugned judgment and award, this Court
holds that 50% of Rs.2,800/- would be Rs.1,400/-. This
makes the annual income of the deceased as Rs.16,800/-,
which would be the multiplicand in the present matter.
Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, in terms of the
judgment in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi
Transport Corp.& Anr reported at 2009 (2) SCC (CRI) 1002,
the applicable multiplier would be to the tune of 17,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
considering the age of the deceased. The paragraph of
Sarla Verma (supra) reads as follows:
"We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra
and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of
18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years),
reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for
26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40
years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50
years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that
is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7
for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
15. Hence, the loss of dependency would be to the tune of
Rs.2,85,600/- (Rs.16,800 X 17).
16. As is apparent, the original claimants and consequently,
the present appellants are the mother and brother of the
deceased. The learned advocate has not pressed for the
loss of consortium in respect of the appellant no.2, as he is
the brother of the deceased, and therefore, this Court is
not inclined to examine the said issue in the present
matter. Needless to say that the consortium would be to
the tune of Rs.48,400/- insofar as the mother, the
appellant no.1 herein is concerned. Insofar as the heads of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate are concerned, under
each head, a sum of Rs.18,150/- is liable to be awarded.
Hence, the total amount liable to be awarded would be
Rs.3,70,300/- that being the aggregate of Rs.2,85,600/-
(Loss of Dependency); Rs.48,400/- (Loss of Consortium);
Rs.18,150/- (Loss of Estate) and Rs.18,150/- (Funeral
Expenses). As such, the Tribunal has already awarded a
sum of Rs.1,65,400/-, and therefore, the enhanced amount
in the present matter would come to Rs.2,04,900/-
(Rs.3,70,300/- less Rs.1,65,400/-).
17. Now, insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, as such,
the Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
actual realization, which this Court is inclined to uphold.
The reason for so accepting is that that no appeal has been
filed by the Insurance Company and thus, without such
appeal, in an appeal of the claimants, the interest cannot
simply be reduced. And secondly, as such, this Court is of
the view that 9% interest would be fair, considering that for
the accident is of the Year-1998, the enhancement is being
awarded in the Year-2025. As such, this Court believes
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/305/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
that considering the inflationary trends, so as to
reasonably be close to the purchase power of the
compensation as has been awarded, it is only fair that 9%
of interest rate is maintained. Accordingly, this Court holds
that the applicable rate of interest would be to the tune of
9%.
18. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid
extent. The Insurance Company - respondent no.3 shall
deposit the enhanced amount within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of the signed copy of the
Order. Once such amount has been deposited with the
Tribunal, the Tribunal shall forthwith disburse the amount
without creating any further FDRs considering that the
accident is of the Year-1998.
19. The Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed
of, accordingly. The R&P be sent back to the Tribunal,
forthwith.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
JIGAR J RABARI
