Sanjuben Sanjaybhai Padhi vs Shivpujan Ramrasile Chamar on 27 January, 2026

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/4020/2014                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                            R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4020 of 2014

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
                       ==========================================================
                                   Approved for Reporting                      Yes             No

                       ==========================================================
                                              SANJUBEN SANJAYBHAI PADHI & ORS.
                                                           Versus
                                             SHIVPUJAN RAMRASILE CHAMAR & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                       RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
                       ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                                                           Date : 27/01/2026

                                                           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 30.08.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Surat in MACP No.375 of 2011.

2. The brief facts of the present appeal are that on 31.05.2011, Sanjaybhai Gadadhar Padhi was walking on the correct side of the road. At that time, Respondent No.1 was driving his tempo bearing registration No. GJ-05-AU-7264 in a

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

rash and negligent manner and at high speed, thereby endangering human life. The tempo struck Sanjaybhai Gadadhar Padhi and caused accident. As a result of the accident, Sanjaybhai Gadadhar Padhi sustained serious injuries and died during the course of treatment.

2.1 Therefore, the applicants - original claimants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surat, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased. They also prayed that the respondents be held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

3. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present applicants - original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding the present applicants - original claimants entitled to an amount of Rs.6,60,600/- 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.

4. This Court vide order dated 22.01.2015 noticing the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellants- original claimants and the grounds raised in the appeal, has admitted the appeal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Hiren M Modi appearing for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment and award, has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the actual income of the deceased and vehemently argued that the claimants have proved the income of the deceased and produced the oral as well as documentary evidences for the same. He further submitted that the claimants have examined witness No.2 Rohit Chaganbhai Surya and also produced the salary certificate vide Exhibit 38.

6. The learned Advocate for the appellants further submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the salary certificate produced on record and assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-, which is not just and proper. He further submitted that the claimants had produced oral and documentary evidences and proved the income of the deceased, but the same is not considered and therefore, required to interfere. He further submitted 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 i.e., loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.

7. 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. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

learned Advocate 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.

8. Learned Advocate Mr. Alkesh N Shah appeared for the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company. He 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 on higher side.

9. He further referred to the cross-examination of the applicant's witness No. 2 and vehemently argued that on which basis, the salary certificate was issued has not been proved and not produced any supporting documents or copies of accounts. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are just and proper, and there is no requirement for any interference with the assessed income of the deceased in the impugned judgment. 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.

10. Heard learned Advocates for the applicants and the Insurance Company on the controversial issues between the parties in narrow compass and only to decide the issue of just compensation.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the subject matter in the claim petition, the applicants state that the deceased was doing job in Surya Synthetic and earning Rs.11,000/- per month. The claimant No.1 has filed her affidavit in form of chief examination at Exhibit 28. She stated that the deceased was earning Rs.11,000/- per month. In support of her contention, the claimant has examined witness No.2 Rohit Chaganbhai Surya vide Exhibit 37, who is the owner of Surya Synthetic. In his deposition, he has stated that the deceased was operating machine in his factory and was getting salary of Rs.10,695/- per month and has also produced salary certificate vide Exhibit 38. During the cross examination, he has admitted that they have not deducted any professional tax and not produced any documentary evidence from which the said salary certificate of the deceased was issued.

12. Considering the available materials on record, the claimants have produced xerox copies of the salary register at mark 34/2 to 34/5 from date 01.04.2011 to 30.05.2011 and also considered the salary certificate produced vide Exhibit 38, it appears that, the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.10,695/- per month. It is well settled principle that the provisions of Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applied in compensation of motor accident cases. Under the said circumstances, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the relevant material available on record and hence, required to interfere and assessed the monthly income of the deceased as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

Rs. 10,695/- per month (10,700/- rounded off) which is just, proper and reasonable.

13. In the case of Rajwati and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors reported in 2022 ACJ 2754, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph No.20 as under.

"In view of the above, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court while rejecting the salary certificate (Exh. 19) and pay slip (Exh. 20) of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined before the learned tribunal. The said documents are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and were also corroborated by the statements of the deceased's wife (appellant No.1 herein) and his co-workers. As such, the High Court was not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the findings of the learned tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the deceased's income at Rs.11,225/- per month on the basis of aforementioned two documents. Annual income of the deceased, therefore, amounts to Rs.11,225*12= 1,34,700/-."

14. 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 28 years, as accepted by the Tribunal by considering the postmortem report produced on record, 40% 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 widow, one child and his parents, 1/4th deduction is to be applied towards spent by the deceased on himself. Thus, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

calculation of the prospective income of the deceased at the rate of 40% is considered as Rs.10,700/- x 40% (Rs.4,280/-) = Rs.14,980/-. After 1/4th deduction towards personal expense of the deceased, the calculation of the income the deceased is Rs.11,235/-(Rs.14980/- - Rs.3745/- (1/4th deduction towards personal expenses.) Noticing the fact that the deceased was aged 28 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 17 shall be applied. Thus, the future loss benefit is determined as Rs.11,235 x 12 x 17 (Multiplier) which comes to Rs.22,92,000/- (rounded off)

15. Now, so far 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.1,93,600/- (Rs.48,400/- X 4). 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

16. Therefore, original claimants - appellants herein are entitled to enhanced amount as computed hereunder:

Compensation As per award under As awarded by this challenge (Rs.) Court (Rs.)

Dependency 1/4th 1/4th

Income 3,500/- 10,700/-

                       Prospective income                            -               4,280/- (40%)

                       Deduction                     of          1/4th              1/4th (14,980 x
                       amount          spent         by                              1/4= 3,745/-)
                       the       deceased            on
                       himself



                       Future Loss                             5,35,500/-       Rs.11,235 x 12 x 17
                                                                                              =
                                                                                   Rs.22,92,000/-
                                                                                    (Rounded off)

                       Loss of consortium                      1,00,000/-              1,93,600/-

                       Funeral expenses                         5,000/-                  18,150/-

                       Medical Expenses                         10,053/-                 10,053/-

                       Loss of estate                           10,000/-                 18,150/-

                       Total Compensation                    Rs.6,60,600/-           25,32,000/-
                                                                                   (Rounded off )

                       Enhanced                                      -               18,71,400/-
                       compensation







                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/4020/2014                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

                                                                                                                    undefined

17. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Naggappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. 2003 ACJ 12, the compensation should not be restricted to the amount claimed and it is required to award just compensation which is reasonable and in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation more than the amount which was claimed before the Tribunal.

18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award dated 30.08.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Surat in MACP No.375 of 2011 hereby modified. The appellants- original claimants are held entitled to compensation of an amount of Rs.25,32,000/-. Since by impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,60,600/-, the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.18,71,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization on the enhanced amount. The respondents - original opponents 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.

19. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

undefined

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.

20. Let, such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal 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.