[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Jalaluddin Bachubhai Belim vs Aqib Ferojbhai Belim on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/432/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 432 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JALALUDDIN BACHUBHAI BELIM & ANR.
Versus
AQIB FEROJBHAI BELIM & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
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 : 23/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 15.05.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
Chhotaudepur, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.232/2021, the appellants -original claimants
preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2. Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants -
original Claimants and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned counsel for respondent
No.3. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 05.12.2020, deceased
Nasimbanu Bachubhai Belim was going along with Mohsin on motorcycle
bearing No.GJ-34-C-0951 towards Golagamdi, at that time one Truck bearing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/432/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
No.GJ-06-AT-1675 came from Golagamdi on wrong side with full speed and
in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle. As a result,
the deceased got serious injuries and succumbed to it. Therefore, the claim
petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased to get compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence
produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.4,81,000/- along with cost and interest @ 7.5 % p.a.
4. The appeal is filed on limited ground of quantum and no further issue
qua liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Therefore, learned
counsel for the claimant has mainly argued that, the Tribunal has erred in
considering monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5000/- on notional basis
as she was selling 'Dalpulav' at Golagamdi Cross roads and used to earn
Rs.15,000/- p.m. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not awarding future
prospective income and other conventional heads are required to be
enhanced. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has rightly
awarded compensation in absence of any evidence of income and adequate
compensation is awarded under the other conventional heads. Therefore,
requested to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, it appears that the appeal is filed only on the aspect of quantum and
liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross-
objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of
quantum only. Alleged incident is not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle
is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant No.2 has filed
an Affidavit at Exh:18, FIR at Exh:22, Panchnama of scene of incident at
Exh:23, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:24 and PM report at Exh:25. After
appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held the
offending vehicle sole negligent relying on the decisions of the Bimla Devi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/432/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
Vs. HRTC reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir
Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635. Further, the age of the deceased is
60 years as per the PM report which is at Exh:25.
7. 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 in
December, 2020 and during that time, the deceased was selling Dalpulav in
lorry and used to earn Rs.15,000/-, but no any income proof is produced on
record. Therefore, the minimum income is required to be considered as
Rs.9,050/-. Hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.9,050/-
per month. Further, the Tribunal has not considered future prospective
income of the deceased. However, this Court is of the view that, 10 % future
prospective income is required to be considered. As the deceased was
married and having two sons, 1/3rd deduction as personal expenditure and
living of the deceased and multiplier of 9 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.
8. Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.9,050/- and
future prospect of 10% = Rs.905/- which comes to Rs.9,955/- and 1/3rd
amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the
deceased which comes to Rs.3,318/- and the net amount comes to
Rs.6,637/-. In view of above, the amount under the head of loss of future
dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.6,637/- x 12 months x 9
multiplier = Rs.7,16,796/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.3,56,796/- under the head of future loss of
dependency.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/432/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
9. Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680
has awarded total Rs.33,000/- under the two conventional heads, however,
this Court is of the view that amount is required to be reassessed as
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral
expenses. Therefore, the appellants - original claimants are entitled for
additional amount of Rs.3300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1650/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1650/- towards
funeral expenses).
10. 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 amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.96,800/- for
2 dependents.
11. As discussed above, the appellants - original claimants are entitled to
get compensation computed as under:-
Heads Awarded by the Reassessed by
Tribunal this Court
Future loss of dependency 3,60,000/- 7,16,796/-
Loss of Estate 16,500/- 18,150/-
Funeral expenses 16,500/- 18,150/-
Loss of consortium 88,000/- 96,800/-
Total compensation 4,81,000/- 8,49,896/-
12. As Rs.4,81,000/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
appellants - original claimants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.3,68,896/- (Rs.8,49,896 - Rs.4,81,000/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
13. Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 15.05.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/432/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
Chhotaudepur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.232/2021 stands
modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains
unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.3 shall deposit such additional
amount of Rs.3,68,896/- 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 Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on
enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. Award
to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
