[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Lh Of Decd Patel Ashaben Mahendrabhai vs Javantram Pokkaram Bishnoi on 27 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1883/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1883 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LH OF DECD PATEL ASHABEN MAHENDRABHAI & ORS.
Versus
JAVANTRAM POKKARAM BISHNOI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
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 13.10.2021 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Visnagar in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.1554 of 2012.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though
served, none appears for respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that On 11.12.2011, while
the applicants were travelling in Alto Car No. GJ-8-F-8978 from
Palanpur to Sidhpur, the respondent No.1, driver of Tata Truck
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1883/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
No. RJ-19-GA-4229, suddenly applied brakes and took a left
turn without signal in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in
the Alto car colliding with the rear of the truck. In the said
accident, Ashaben died and appellant Nos.1.1 and 1.2 sustained
serious injuries.
4. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not properly
considering the evidence produced on record. It is contended
that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of
the deceased on a notional basis. It is further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the
deceased at only Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas, as per the
minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time, the same
was Rs.7,00/- per month. Even under the conventional heads,
the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation,
which is required to be enhanced. Therefore, the Tribunal ought
to have considered the monthly income at Rs.7,000/-. It is
further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded
just and proper compensation. Hence, the learned advocate for
the appellant has prayed that the present appeal be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned advocates appearing for the
respondents have 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1883/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
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.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned
Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in light of the decisions in
Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari
Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635.
7. Since the challenge in the present appeal is confined only
to the quantum of compensation, the matter is required to be
examined within a limited scope.
8. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, as law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012 (1) TAC 1 (SC),
in the absence of documentary proof of income, the Tribunal is
required to consider the prevailing minimum wages at the
relevant time while assessing the income of the deceased.
9. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year
2011. At the relevant time, the Government-approved minimum
wages were Rs. 4,710/- per month for the skilled person.
However, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is on the lower side
and, therefore, requires enhancement. Accordingly, the income
of the deceased is reassessed at Rs. 4,710/- per month. Further,
the learned Tribunal has added future prospects at the rate of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1883/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
40%, which appears to be just and proper and does not call for
any interference. The learned Tribunal has also deducted one-
third (1/3rd) towards personal and living expenses, considering
that there are three claimants, which is in consonance with
settled principles and requires no interference. Moreover, the
multiplier of 15 has been applied by this Court after considering
the age of the deceased, who was 37 years at the time of the
accident, and in accordance with the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC
10. Therefore, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,710/-
per month and adding 40% towards future prospects, i.e. Rs.
1,884/-, the total monthly income comes to Rs. 6,594/-. 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. 2,198/-. Thus, the net monthly contribution to the
family comes to Rs. 4,396/-. Accordingly, the loss of dependency
is required to be reassessed as Rs. 4,396 × 12 × 15 = Rs.
7,91,280/-.
11. So far as the amounts awarded under the conventional
heads are concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.
70,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses, which is on the lower side and requires modification.
The claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,44,600/- (Rs. 48,200 × 3)
towards loss of consortium, Rs. 18,150/- towards loss of estate,
and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral and transportation expenses.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1883/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
12. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 18,150/-
towards loss of estate, Rs. 1,44,600/- towards loss of
consortium, and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral and
transportation expenses.
13. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 7,91,280/-
towards loss of future income. Upon recalculation of the
compensation under the conventional heads, the total
compensation payable to the claimants is as under:
Sr. No. Nature of heads Amount
1 Future loss of income
Rs.7,91,280/-
2 Loss of Consortium Rs.48,200x3= Rs.1,44,600/-
3 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
4 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
Total Rs.9,72,180/-
14. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.3,85,340/- (Rs.9,72,180 - Rs.5,86,840) along
with interest as awarded by the Tribunal 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.9,72,180/-
from Rs.5,86,840. Respondent - Insurance Company shall
deposit the said additional amount of Rs.3,85,340/- along with
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal , before the Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1883/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
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.
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
