[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ranabhai Surabhai Gohil vs Dipakbhai Durgashankarbhai Pandya on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2621 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
RANABHAI SURABHAI GOHIL & ANR.
Versus
DIPAKBHAI DURGASHANKARBHAI PANDYA & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Bhavnagar at Mahuva (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.63 of 2019, the appellants - original claimants have
preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the
Act" for short).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants -
original Claimants and Mr. A. N. Shah, learned Advocate for
respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record and
proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 09.11.2019, the deceased
Pradipsinh @ Panchabhai Ranabhai (who shall hereinafter be
referred to as "deceased") was proceeding towards Vadal from
Juna Padar on his motorcycle at that time one Bus bearing Reg.
NoGJ-5-AV-3515, owned by opponent no.2 and driven by opponent
no.1 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the
motorcycle as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and
succumbed to the same. Therefore, the appellants had filed MAC
Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after
appreciating the evidence produced on record has allowed the claim
petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellants - claimants has submitted that
the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the income
of the deceased and also erred in not awarding consortium to each
appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent - Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal
has rightly assessed the income of the deceased in absence of
evidence of income and properly appreciated the evidence produced
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
on record and awarded the compensation. Hence, he has requested
to dismiss the present appeal.
6) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has
not considered minimum wages of prevalent time and also not
considered consortium to each appellants, hence, the appeal is
required to be decided in narrow compass. As per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC),
that if no proof of income is produced on the record then Tribunal
has to consider prevalent minimum wages in absence of evidence
of monthly income of the deceased. In the present case the
accident occurred on 09.11.2019 and during that time the deceased
was doing agriculture, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month which is required
to be enhanced as per the rate of minimum wages of the prevalent
time and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as
Rs.8,200/- per month. Further, as the deceased was aged 38
years at the time of accident on the basis of which the learned
Tribunal has considered future prospective income as 40% and as
the deceased was unmarried 1/2 deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 15 were
considered by the learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
just and proper.
7) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8,200/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,280/- which comes to
Rs.11,480/- and 1/2 amount is required to be deducted towards
personal living expenses of the deceased which comes to
Rs.5,740/- and the net amount comes to Rs.5,740/-. In view of
above the amount under the head of future loss of income is
required to be reassessed as Rs.5,740/- x 12 x 15 =
Rs.10,33,200/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.4,03,200/- towards future loss of income.
8) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported
in 2017 ACJ 2700, has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the three
conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount
is required to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants -
original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/-
(i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral
expenses).
9) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram,
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao
Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned Tribunal
has committed error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium, however, in view of above judgments the appellants -
original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased they are
entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of
consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is
reassessed as Rs.96,800/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 2). Therefore, the
appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.56,800/-
towards of loss of consortium.
10) As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled
to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.6,30,000/- Rs.10,33,200/-
including additional
amount of Rs.4,03,200/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.96,800/-
including additional
amount of Rs.56,800/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 2)
Total compensation Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.11,66,300/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.4,66,300/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2621/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.7,00,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.4,66,300/-
(Rs.11,66,300/- - Rs.7,00,000/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar at Mahuva, in MAC Petition No.63 of
2019 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment
and award remains unaltered. The respondent no.3 - Insurance
Company shall deposit the said additional amount of
Rs.4,66,300/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal,
before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to
the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
13) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
14) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
