[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Varshaben Pravinbhai Parmar vs Rajeshbhai Fatesinh Sodhaparmar on 5 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/403/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 403 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
VARSHABEN PRAVINBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
RAJESHBHAI FATESINH SODHAPARMAR & ANR.
==============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 05/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 13.07.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Anand (which shall hereinafter be referred to as
"the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.101
of 2020, 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).
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, for the appellants -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/403/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
original Claimants and learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak, for
respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record and
proceedings.
3) It is the case of appellants that on 13.05.2020, deceased Pravinsinh
Ramansinh Sodhaparmar (who shall hereinafter be referred to as
"deceased") and opponent no.1 were going towards Heranj Village
in order to give money to village labourers and the deceased was a
pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-07-CN-7003,
driven by opponent no.1, when they reached agricultural field at
Ardi Village, a blue-bull (Nilgai) suddenly came on the road and
opponent no.1 rider of motorcycle who was riding the motorcycle in
rash and negligent manner dashed with the Nilgai. Due to which the
deceased sustained serious injuries and during the treatment the
deceased was died on 22.05.2020. Therefore, the appellants had
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 appellants - claimants has submitted that
the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the income
of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- on notional basis which is ought to
have been considered as per minimum wages 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/403/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
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
on record and awarded the compensation. Hence, she has
requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) As the appeal is filed on limited ground of inadequate compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal, whereas, the involvement of the
vehicle, issue of negligence and liability to pay the compensation
are not in dispute, 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 13.05.2020
and during that time the deceased was doing labour and agriculture
work and as per the Government approved minimum wages the
rate was Rs.8,645/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which is required
to be enhanced and hence, the income of the deceased is
reassessed as Rs.8,650/- per month. Further, as the deceased
was aged 41 years at the time of accident on the basis of which the
learned Tribunal has considered future prospective income as 25%
and as the deceased was having 4 dependents 1/4 deduction
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/403/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
multiplier of 14 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 just and proper. Further, as per medical bills
produced at Exhibit 29, the Tribunal has properly awarded the
amount towards medical expenses.
7) Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8,650/-
and future prospect of 25% = Rs.2,162/- which comes to
Rs.10,812/- and 1/4 amount is required to be deducted towards
personal living expenses of the deceased which comes to
Rs.2,703/- and the net amount comes to Rs.8,109/-. In view of
above the amount under the head of future loss of income is
required to be reassessed as Rs.8,109/- x 12 x 14 =
Rs.13,62,312/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.4,17,312/- 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.1,90,000/- 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/403/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
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
Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned Tribunal
has committed error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- each 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 loss of consortium.
Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as
Rs.1,93,600/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 4). Therefore, the appellants are
entitled for additional amount of Rs.33,600/- under the head 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.9,45,000/- Rs.13,62,312/-
including additional
amount of Rs.4,17,312/-
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/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/403/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.1,93,600/-
including additional
amount of Rs.33,600/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 4)
Medical expenses Rs.16,357/- Rs.16,357/-
Total compensation Rs.11,51,357/- Rs.16,08,569/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.4,57,212/-
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.11,51,357/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.4,57,212/-
(Rs.16,08,569/- - Rs.11,51,357/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) Moreover, as present appeal was preferred belatedly, the appellants
had filed Civil Application No.5639 of 2024, wherein, vide order
dated 29.01.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench was pleased to pass
order condoning the delay of 402 days subject to the condition that
the appellants shall not be entitled for any interest, on the
enhanced amount of compensation for the delayed period, in case,
the appeal for enhancement is allowed. Accordingly, the appellants
are not entitled for interest on the enhanced amount for aforesaid
period of delay.
13) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated
13.07.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Anand, in MAC Petition No.101 of 2020 stands modified to
the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/403/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
unaltered. The respondent no.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit
the said additional amount of Rs.4,57,212/- 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.
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
15) Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.
16) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
