[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Lalabhai Chelabhai Chauhan vs Virendrasinh Kundansinh Jadav on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2886 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
LALABHAI CHELABHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
VIRENDRASINH KUNDANSINH JADAV & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE 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 judgments and award
dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahals at Godhra (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.184 of 2020, the appellant - original claimant preferred
present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi learned Advocate for the appellant -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
original Claimant and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned Advocate for
respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record and
proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 30.01.2020, the deceased -
Minor Ravindra Lalabhai Chauhan (who shall hereinafter be referred
to as "deceased") along with others were going on motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-M-4884, driven by Lalabhai and minor was
sitting in the lap of Sushilaben. When they passing through
Rinchrota Village, the opponent no.1 came by driving his Ecco Car
bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-BA-7421, from back side in rash and
negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from behind. Due to
which deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the appellant
has filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned
Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has
partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed error in considering notional income of the
deceased and ought to have considered that the deceased after
attaining the age of 14 years would have started working and
earning nothing less than prevailing minimum wages of the date of
accident. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred
in not awarding consortium to each of the appellants. Hence, he
has requested to allow the present appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent - Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal on the ground that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and no
interference is required to call for. With these submissions he has
requested to dismissed the present appeal.
6) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has
committed error in assessing quantum by not considering the
income of the deceased who was 4 months old at the time of
accident as per minimum wages. The learned Tribunal has
considered notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and even
otherwise as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2020) 4 SCC
413 and Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and
Anr, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, and Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral
Citation - 2025 INSC 1070, as per which the Hon'ble Supreme
Court come to the conclusion and clarified that when the Tribunal or
the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a
child having suffered injury or passed away, the calculation of loss
of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum
wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the
relevant point of time. Considering the aforesaid fact in the case on
hand the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of
the deceased child at Rs.15,000/- per annum and the Insurance
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Company is also failed to perform obligation and responsibility as
party to point out applicable minimum wages endorsed by the
Government. In view of above at the relevant point of time the rate
as per minimum wages was Rs.8,278.40, hence, the income of the
deceased is reassessed as Rs.8,300/- per month.
7) Moreover, in view of judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt)
& Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC
121] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the learned Tribunal erred in not
considering future prospective income, however, this Court is of the
view that 40% addition towards future prospectus is required to be
considered. The deceased was aged 4 months at the time of
accident and hence the Tribunal has rightly considered multiplier of
18. However, as the deceased was bachelor at the time of accident,
½ deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased is
required to be considered to award just and proper compensation.
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8,300/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,320/- which comes to to
Rs.11,620/- and ½ amount is required to be deducted as personal
expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.5,810/-
and the net amount comes to Rs.5,810/-. In view of above the
amount under the head of future loss of income is required to be
reassessed as Rs.5,810/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.12,54,960/-. Therefore,
the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.9,84,960/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
towards loss of future income.
9) Further, the learned Tribunal while relying on the judgment of
Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.50,000/- 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 and Rs.48,400/-
towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount under the three
conventional heads is reassessed as Rs.84,700/-. Therefore, the
appellant is are entitled for additional amount of Rs.34,700/-
under the three conventional heads.
10) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation
computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of future income Rs.1,57,500/- Rs.12,54,960/-
including additional
amount of Rs.9,84,960/-
Loss of Estate Rs.50,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium Rs.48,400/-
including additional
amount of Rs.28,400/-
Total compensation Rs.3,20,000/- Rs.13,39,660/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.10,19,660/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.3,20,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.10,19,660/- with
proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
12) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal
Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 274, has observed that there is no restriction that
compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed
by the claimant and in an appropriate case, where from the
evidence brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that
the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed,
the amount of compensation more than the claimed amount can
be awarded.
13) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra, in MAC Petition No.184 of
2020 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment
and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.3 - Insurance
Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.10,19,660/-
along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2886/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
15) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
