[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Kanubhai Bhupatbhai Barot vs Jayantibhai Bhalchandra Dave on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2396/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2396 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KANUBHAI BHUPATBHAI BAROT
Versus
JAYANTIBHAI BHALCHANDRA DAVE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award
dated 31.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi), Vadodara in MACP No.1418 of 2004.
2. The brief facts are that on 28.05.2004, the deceased
namely Pramilaben gone to attend condolence meeting of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2396/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
her relative at Vishrampura on the motorcycle bearing No.
GJ 6 BC 8310 as a pillion rider, which was driven by her
relative. While they were coming towards Vadodara from
Vishrampura, the opponent no.1 came from the back side
driving Santro Car bearing No.GJ 6 AB 4955 in rash and
negligent manner and caused the accident. In the said
accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and
succumbed to the injuries. An offence was registered at JP
Road Police Station, Vadodara against the respondent no.1.
3. Vide the said impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by
the present appellants - original claimants under Section
166 of the Act, 1988 holding the present appellants- original
claimants entitled to an amount of Rs.3,91,000/- with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing
of such claim petition till its actual realization with
proportionate costs. Thus, the Tribunal has not entertained
the claim petition for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as total
compensation.
4. This Court vide order dated 06.01.2016 noticing the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the
appellants- original claimants and the grounds raised in the
appeal, has admitted the appeal.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. MTM Hakim appearing for the
appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment and
award, has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an
error in awarding inadequate compensation to the claimants
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2396/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
and has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its
true perspective. It is contended that the tribunal committed
an error while assessing the income of the deceased to the
extent of Rs.3,000/- per month only and submitted that the
deceased was earning Rs.150/- daily by selling fruits and
vegetables. It is further contended that the tribunal has
failed to consider the gratuitous services rendered by the
deceased and has also produced the judgmnet of this Court
passed in First Appeal No.814 of 2025 dated 11.07.2025
to that effect. It is further argued that the tribunal has
overlooked the settled principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the assessment of
future prospects, dependency, and grant of compensation
under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss
of estate, and funeral expenses.
6. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a
meager and unrealistic amount under various heads
without considering the financial dependency of the family
members and the socio-economic background of the
deceased/injured. The learned counsel has urged that the
compensation awarded is not just, fair, and reasonable, and
is liable to be enhanced in accordance with the settled legal
principles.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia appeared for the
respondent no.3 - Insurance Company. Mr. Gadhia has
placed reliance upon the findings and reasons assigned by
the Tribunal and vehemently argued that the compensation
must be awarded as just, proper and reasonable and not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2396/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
higher side. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal,
after appreciating the materials available on record,
awarded the compensation under each head is just, proper
and reasonable and not required to interfere and lastly
prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties on
the disputes between the parties in narrow compass and
perused the material available on record and impugned
judgment and award, more particularly, the findings and
reasons assigned by the Tribunal while considering the
issue of quantum of compensation.
9. As regards the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the appellant on the assessment of the income
of the deceased is concerned, the tribunal has assessed the
monthly earning of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month
considering the gratuitous services rendered by the house
wife. The tribunal rejected the claim that she was earning by
selling fruits and vegetables in absence of any documentary
evidences. However, considering the deposition of the
appellant and considering the fact that the fruit seller may
not able to produce such evidence regarding her income,
realistic approach is required in assessing the income of the
deceased in absence of the documentary proof. In this case
also, reasonable notional income is required to be assessed
keeping in view the nature of work, gratuitous services
provided by her to the family, age and rise in cost of living.
Considering the said aspects and as per the decision of this
Court in First Appeal No.814 of 2025 dated 11.07.2025,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2396/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
the notional income of Rs.4,000/- per month appears to be
reasonable, just and proper. Accordingly, the income of
Rs.4,000/- is reassessed for the purpose of computation of
compensation.
10. As regards the future prospect is concerned, in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 noticing the age of the
deceased as 45 years, as accepted by the Tribunal by
considering the postmortem report produced on record,
25% rise in income can be considered towards the future
prospects of the deceased. As rightly recorded by the
Tribunal, considering the fact that the deceased was
survived by her husband, 1/3rd deduction is to be applied
towards spend by the deceased on herself. Thus, the
calculation of the prospective income of the deceased at the
rate of 25% is considered as Rs.4000/- * 25% (Rs.1000/-) =
Rs.5,000/-. After 1/3rd deduction towards personal
expense of the deceased, the calculation of the income the
deceased is Rs.3,333/-(Rs.5,000/- - Rs.1667/- (1/3rd
deduction towards personal expenses.). Noticing the fact
that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident,
in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and
the scheduled prescribed, multiplier of 14 shall be applied.
Thus, the future loss benefit is determined as Rs.3,333/-
*12*14 (Multiplier) which comes to Rs.5,59,900/- (rounded
off).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2396/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
11. Now, sofar as the issue of loss of consortium is
concerned, as rightly prayed for by the learned advocate for
the appellant in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs.
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhur Ram & Ors reported in (2018)18
SCC 130, the claimants would be entitled to enhance
amount of compensation under the head of loss of
consortium to the tune of Rs.48,400/-. Lastly, the amount
to be awarded under the conventional heads, more
particularly, funeral expenses and the loss of estate is also
required to be reconsidered in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
The same is to be considered as Rs.18,150/- respectively.
12. Therefore, original claimants - appellants herein are
entitled to enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
Compensation As awarded by this Court
(Rs.)
Income 4000/-
Prospective income 1000/- (25%)
Deduction of amount spent 1/3rd (Rs.3,333/- after
by the deceased on himself deduction)
Future Loss Rs.3333*12*14=
Rs.5,59,900/-
Loss of consortium 48,400/-
Funeral expenses and 18,150/-
transportation
Loss of estate 18,150/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2396/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
Total Compensation Rs.6,44,600/-
Enhanced compensation Rs.6,44,600/- minus
Rs.3,91,000/-
=Rs.2,53,600/-
13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and
award dated 31.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Vadodara in MACP No.1418 of 2004
hereby modified. The appellants- original claimants are held
entitled to compensation of an amount of Rs.6,44,600/-.
Since by impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has
awarded an amount of Rs.3,91,000/-, the appellants shall
be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation to the tune
of Rs.2,53,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the
date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization on the
enhanced amount. The respondents - original opponents
nos. 1 to 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay such
enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate costs
and interest. Rest of the order passed by the tribunal is
hereby confirmed.
14. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited with the
concerned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date
of receipt of the present order. On deposit of the aforesaid
amount, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release and
disburse the entire award amount in favour of the original
claimant, after due verification as per the original judgment
and award.
15. Let, such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2396/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
strictly in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard; preferably within a
period of two weeks from deposit of such amount. The
Tribunal is directed to realize the deficit Court fees before
proceeding with the disbursement of the amount.
16. R&P be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith,
if received.
17. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off
accordingly.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
