[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Babubhai Dhulabhai Isarvadiya vs Khengarbhai Bhopabhai Gamara on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2085/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2085 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
BABUBHAI DHULABHAI ISARVADIYA & ANR.
Versus
KHENGARBHAI BHOPABHAI GAMARA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 15/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant
against the judgment and award dated 07.08.2018 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Anand in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.509 of 2014.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 22.07.2014,
at about 13:30 hours, while the deceased was travelling on
Motorcycle No. GJ-06-AQ-3032, when he reached the place of
the accident, Respondent No.1, while driving Eicher Tempo No.
GJ-04-W-6609 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against
the deceased. The wheels of the tempo ran over the head of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2085/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
deceased, and the accident occurred. In the same accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those
injuries on the spot. Being the parents and dependents of the
deceased, the appellants filed a MACP before the learned MACT,
Anand..
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 erred in assessing the income of the
deceased on a notional basis. It is further submitted that,
without assigning any reasons, the learned Tribunal deducted
10% towards contributory negligence, and that consortium has
also not been awarded in accordance with the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.,
(2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence, the learned advocate for the
appellant has prayed that the present appeal be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Tanmay Karia, learned advocate
appearing for respondent No.2, 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 is submitted that no error has been committed by
the Tribunal in attributing 10% negligence to the driver of the
Eicher Tempo. Even the learned Tribunal has considered the
joint pursis submitted by the parties while determining
contributory negligence. Hence, the question of re-agitating the
issue does not arise. Moreover, in the pleadings, the income of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2085/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
the deceased is stated to be only Rs.5,000/-.Therefore, this
Court may 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 considering the
entire material on record and, hence, no interference is called for
at the hands of this Court and the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the record, motor accident claims
are required to be decided on the basis of the preponderance of
probabilities. So far as contributory negligence of 10% is
concerned, both the parties had agreed before the Tribunal and
had submitted a joint pursis to attribute 10% negligence to the
driver of the Eicher Tempo; therefore, the question of re-agitating
the issue does not arise. The learned Tribunal has properly
appreciated the evidence in the form of the chief-examination at
Exhibit 27 and, on the basis of the documents produced at
Exhibits 29 and 30 (panchnama), has concluded that the driver
of the Eicher Tempo was negligent to the extent of 90% and the
deceased was negligent to the extent of 10%. The said finding
does not call for interference.
7. So far as the contention regarding inadequate
compensation is concerned, it is true that the alleged incident
took place in July 2014, whereas the learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month.
The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
minimum wages prevailing in the year 2014 ought to have been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2085/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
considered. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the
respondent has submitted that since the income pleaded was
Rs.5,000/-, the question of considering minimum wages does
not arise. However, considering the benevolent object of the
Motor Vehicles Act to award just and proper compensation, the
Court is required to consider the minimum wages in the absence
of cogent proof of income. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in
2012 (1) TAC 1 (SC), where no proof of income is produced on
record, the Tribunal must consider the prevailing minimum
wages. Therefore, the minimum wages of Rs.6,000/- per month
are required to be considered.
8. Further, as the deceased was 19 years old at the time of
the accident, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)
6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier is 18, which has been
correctly applied by the Tribunal. In view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 68, the Tribunal has rightly considered
40% towards future prospects.
9. Therefore, by adding 40% (Rs.2,400/-) towards future
prospects, the total monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.8,400/-. As the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income
is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses
in the case of a bachelor, in view of the settled principles laid
down in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, Rs.4,200/- is to be
deducted, and the monthly loss of dependency comes to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2085/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
Rs.4,200/-.
10. Considering that the deceased was in the relevant age
group at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is
"18" as per Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,200 × 12 × 18).
11. As regards the conventional heads, the Tribunal had
awarded Rs.30,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss to estate,
and loss of consortium, which requires enhancement.
Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.96,400/- ( ₹48,200
× 2) towards loss of consortium, as there are two claimants
entitled thereto, Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, and
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses.
12. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.18,150/-
towards loss of estate, Rs.96,400/- towards loss of consortium,
and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral and transportation expenses.
13. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,07,200/-
towards loss of dependency. Upon adding the compensation
awarded under the conventional heads, the total amount of
compensation comes to:
Sr. No. Nature of heads Amount
1 Future loss of income Rs.907,200/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2085/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
2 Loss of Consortium Rs.48,200x2= Rs.96,400/-
3 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
Total Rs.10,39,900/-
14. As the deceased was held negligent to the extent of 10%,
10% of the total amount, i.e. Rs.1,03,990/-, is required to be
deducted. Consequently, the net payable amount comes to
Rs.9,35,910/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to additional
compensation of Rs.3,64,590/- (Rs.9,35,910 − Rs.5,71,320),
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
the claim petition till realization.
15. It is needless to say that the Motor Vehicles Act is a
benevolent legislation which has been framed with the object of
providing relief to the victims, or their families and there is no
bar that compensation is restricted up to the claim by the
claimant and the High Court and Tribunal have to award the
compensation up to that extent. In this regard reference is
required to be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and
others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274,
wherein, it has been observed that there is no restriction that
compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed
by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence
brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the
claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2085/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
16. 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.9,35,910/-
from Rs.5,71,320/-. Respondent - Insurance Company shall
deposit the said additional amount of Rs.3,64,590/-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.
17. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the
deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse
the amount accordingly.
18. Award to be drawn accordingly.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
