[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Himatbhai Bhanjibhai Limbasiya vs Gomtiben Bhagubhai Mata on 27 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1849/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1849 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HIMATBHAI BHANJIBHAI LIMBASIYA & ORS.
Versus
GOMTIBEN BHAGUBHAI MATA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and award dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gondal in Motor Accident Claim
Petition being MACP No.54 of 2017.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though
served, none appears for the respondent No.1.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.02.2017, deceased
was travelling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle No. GJ-14-AB-770.
When they reached near the place of the accident, the driver of a
truck, driving at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life, attempted to overtake
another vehicle and, in the process, dashed into the motorcycle
on which the deceased was travelling. As a result of the said
accident, Jayaben Himatbhai Limbasiya sustained fatal injuries
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1849/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
and succumbed to death. The claimants, therefore, filed the
present Motor Accident Claim Petition before the learned
Tribunal seeking compensation.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award contrary to the
settled principles of law and has erred in drawing unwarranted
inferences from the evidence on record. It was contended that
the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation by assessing
the income of the deceased at only Rs. 5,000/- per month, which
requires enhancement. It was further submitted that the learned
Tribunal ignored the prevailing minimum wages applicable at the
time of the accident. Though the deceased was a homemaker,
she was also contributing to the family income through
agricultural activities, which has not been properly considered. It
was also argued that under the head of consortium, the learned
Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation.
Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the 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.
Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award passed
by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after
taking into consideration the entire material on record and
hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court
and the present appeal may be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1849/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the
learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence in light
of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi v.
H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwar(i) Devi v. Amir
Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, along with the evidence produced
on record. The present appeal has been filed on the ground of
the quantum of compensation. However, the involvement of the
vehicle in the accident is not in dispute, therefore, the issue
involved in the appeal is required to be considered in a narrow
compass.
7. Since the challenge pertains to the assessment of income of
the deceased, it is necessary to examine whether the learned
Tribunal has correctly determined the same. As per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683. In
the absence of documentary proof of income, the Tribunal is
required to consider the prevailing minimum wages for assessing
the monthly income of the deceased.
8. In the present case, the accident occurred on 18.02.2017.
As per the Government-notified minimum wages prevailing at
the relevant time, the income of a skilled person would be Rs.
7,946/- per month. The deceased was a multi-functional woman
who, in addition to being a homemaker, was also engaged in
agricultural activities and contributing to the family income.
Therefore, considering her multi-functional role and
contribution, her income is assessed at Rs. 8,200/- per month.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1849/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
However, the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the
deceased at only Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is on the lower
side and requires enhancement. Accordingly, the income of the
deceased is reassessed at Rs. 8,200/- per month.
9. Further, the learned Tribunal has added 10% towards
future prospects, which appears to be just and proper
considering the age of the deceased and in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680,
and Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. The learned Tribunal
has assessed the age of the deceased at 50 years on the basis of
the documentary evidence produced by the claimants on record,
which appears to be just and proper. Accordingly, the deceased
falls within the age group of 51-55 years, and therefore, a
multiplier of 11 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal in view
of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra), which does not call for
any interference. Further, since there are three claimants, one-
third (1/3rd) of the income has been rightly deducted towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased.
10. Therefore, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,200/-
per month and adding 10% towards future prospects, i.e. Rs.
820/-, the total monthly income comes to Rs. 9,020/-. From the
said amount, one-third (1/3rd) is required to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which
comes to Rs. 3,006/-. Thus, the net monthly contribution to the
family comes to Rs. 6,014/-. In view of the above, the amount
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1849/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
under the head of loss of dependency is required to be
reassessed as Rs. 6,014 × 12 × 11 = Rs. 7,93,848/-.
11. As regards the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal
has awarded Rs. 48,000/- towards loss of consortium only to
applicant No. 1. However, no separate compensation has been
awarded to the other claimants, though there are three
claimants in total. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18
SCC 130, each eligible claimant is entitled to consortium.
Considering that there are three dependents, the total amount
payable towards consortium comes to Rs. 1,44,600/- (Rs.
48,200 × 3).
12. The learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 18,000/-
towards loss of estate, which appears to be on the lower side and
deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 18,150/-. Similarly, the amount
of Rs. 18,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is also
required to be enhanced to Rs. 18,150/-. The learned Tribunal
has awarded Rs. 1,16,500/- towards medical expenses, which
appears to be just and proper considering the medical papers
and bills produced on record and, therefore, does not call for any
interference. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to:
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.1,44,600/- towards loss of consortium,
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral and transportation expenses,
Rs.1,16,500/- towards medical expenses,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1849/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
13. The claimants are entitled to Rs.7,93,848/- towards loss
of future income. Upon recalculating the compensation, the total
amount payable is as under:
Sr. No. Nature of heads Amount
1 Future loss of income
Rs.7,93,848/-
2 Loss of Consortium Rs.48,200x3=Rs.1,44,600/-
3 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
4 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
Medical expenses Rs.1,16,500/-
Total Rs.10,91,248/-
14. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.4,06,648/- (Rs.10,91,248 - Rs.6,84,600)
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
the claim petition till realization.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,91,248/-
from Rs.6,84,600/-. Respondent - Insurance Company shall
deposit the said additional amount of Rs.4,06,648/-along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1849/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
16. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the
deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse
the amount accordingly.
17. Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
