[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Lh Of Decd Minor Krishaben ... on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2592/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2592 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2592 of 2025
==========================================================
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
LH OF DECD MINOR KRISHABEN SIDDHARTHKUMAR RANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR. NISARG D SHAH(7299) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,2,3
MS POOJA D SHAH(13905) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 24/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 17.04.2025
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Halol at
Panchmahals, in MACP No.220 of 2021.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2020, the
claimants along with the deceased, Krishaben Siddharthkumar
Rana, were travelling to Vada Talav in Vehicle No. GJ-01-KU-
5270, which was being driven by Opponent No.2, Vishwaben
Niralbhai Chorksi, in a rash and negligent manner. Upon
reaching near Timbi Patia, the driver lost control of the vehicle
and dashed it against a tree, resulting in serious injuries to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2592/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
occupants. Due to the said accident, Krishaben Siddharthkumar
Rana sustained fatal injuries. Therefore, the claimants filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating the evidence on
record and in assessing the notional income of the claimant at
Rs.7,500/- per month, which is on the higher side. It was further
contended that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier
of 18 instead of 15 and has grossly erred in applying the settled
principles of law while determining the compensation. Hence, it
was requested that the appeal be allowed. In support of his
submissions, the learned advocate for the appellant relied upon
the judgment in Diya v. National Insurance Co., (2022) 0 SCC
1099, and contended that in the case of a victim falling in the
age group of 15 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is
15. he has also relied on the judgment in the case of Meena
Devi v. Nunuchand Mahto, (2023 1 SCC 204), National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680, Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) SCJ
5. On the contrary, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that
the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper
compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2592/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
contended that the judgment passed by the Tribunal are based
on proper appreciation of evidence, and hence, no interference is
called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be
dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the
involvement of the vehicle, coverage of insurance, and negligence
are not in dispute, as the dispute is limited only to the question
of quantum. Hence, the appeal is required to be decided within a
narrow compass.
7. At the outset, so far as the income is concerned, the
learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the minor at
Rs.7,500/- per month, considering that the minimum wages for
an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident were
Rs.7,400/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the income at
Rs.7,500/- in view of the decision in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs
Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation - 2025
INSC 1070. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed
any error in assessing the income of the claimant. Hence, the
argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant is
not sustainable.
8. Now, so far as the issue of multiplier is concerned, upon
perusal of the record and the impugned judgment and award, it
appears that at the time of the accident, the claimant was a
minor. Considering the said fact, the learned Tribunal has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2592/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
applied the multiplier of 18 by relying upon Schedule II to
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned advocate for
the appellant has raised a grievance with regard to the multiplier
applied by the learned Tribunal and has contended that a
multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied instead of 18.
However, upon considering the nature of disability suffered by
the minor claimant and the amounts awarded under the heads
of loss of marriage prospects and other conventional heads, it
appears that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
in applying the multiplier of 18, particularly in view of the age of
the victim and the nature of injuries sustained. The minor
claimant has suffered permanent disability and consequential
losses which would affect her throughout her life. In this regard,
reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors., reported in
(2020) 4 SCC 413, wherein it has been held that the Tribunal is
required to award compensation in a realistic and just manner,
keeping in mind the degree of deprivation and loss suffered by
the injured, and that such compensation should not be merely
token in nature, as the injured claimant has to face the
consequences throughout her life. Further, in Master Ayush v.
Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited & Anr., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, relying upon the decision in Kajal (supra), has
reiterated the said principles.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of minor
had considered multiplier of 18. As the learned Tribunal has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2592/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kajal (Supra), no error has been committed by the
learned Tribunal in considering the injury to the minor in relying
on the decision in the case of Kajal (Supra).
10. Further, the compensation has to be awarded once and for
all as victim is not at fault and it is the duty of the Tribunal to
award just compensation. Considering overall facts and
circumstances relating to treatment, mental agony, pain,
disablement, loss of wages and expenditure in the hospital for
nutritious diet and other expenditure incurred by the family
members and other charges for attendant is also required to be
considered. Considering the disablement and mental pain, shock
and suffering qua loss of amenities, learned Tribunal has
properly considered all the aspects and awarded just
compensation on the head of non-pecuniary damages also. It is
also pertinent to note that adopting a sensitive approach is
crucial for the Tribunal. It plays a key and vital role in ensuring
not only justice to the victim of the motor accident but also to
determine just and fair compensation. The Tribunal is expected
to have empathy and to prevent subsequent trauma by taking a
sensitive approach to feeling the pain of the victim of the road
accident because the victim of the road accident and their family
often deal with physical and emotional trauma and an
empathetic approach can provide them a sense of support and
understanding.
11. With a view to awarding just compensation, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2592/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) has referred to the
earlier decisions in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari
(supra). In both the decisions, it has been observed that in the
case of a minor, the Schedule provided under Section 163A of
the Motor Vehicles Act may be taken into consideration.
However, in Sarla Verma (supra), it has also been clarified that
the multiplier table under Section 163A is not entirely rational
and is subject to correction, and that the multiplier indicated in
Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma (supra) should ordinarily
be followed.
12. Even otherwise, the learned Tribunal has considered the
minimum wages at Rs.7,500/- and added 40% towards future
prospective income, i.e., Rs.3,000/-, thereby arriving at a total
monthly income of Rs.10,500/-. Considering ½ deduction
towards personal expenses as per the decision in Sarla Verma
(supra), the loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,250/- per
month. If the aforesaid amount is taken into consideration, the
annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.63,000/-. Further,
considering the difference in the application of multiplier of 15
instead of 18, the difference would be (18 - 15) = 3. Even if the
said argument is accepted, even though the total difference
would come to Rs.1,89,000/-. On account of the smallness of
the amount, no case is made out for interference in the
impugned judgment.
13. Considering the aforesaid legal position, in a claim filed
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is
required to be awarded "just compensation" based on the facts
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2592/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
and circumstances of the case. Therefore, having regard to the
peculiar facts of the present case, the authority relied upon by
the learned advocate for the appellant is not of any assistance,
particularly in light of the decisions in Kajal (supra) and Master
Ayush (supra).
14. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be
just and proper, which calls for no interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves
dismissal and is hereby dismissed. If any amount is lying
deposited before this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the
learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. The Registry is
directed to return the Record & Proceedings, if any, to the
learned Tribunal forthwith.
15. Since the main matter is disposed of, the present
application does not survive. Hence, the same is disposed of.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
