[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ramuben W/O Devabhai Mepabhai Bhuva vs Vinodbhai Manjibhai Golakiya on 16 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 638 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAMUBEN W/O DEVABHAI MEPABHAI BHUVA & ORS.
Versus
VINODBHAI MANJIBHAI GOLAKIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 16/03/2026
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellants-
original claimants and Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar, learned advocate for the
respondent no.2-The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter to
be referred as "the Insurance Company"). The notice of admission of
appeal, is reported to have been duly served upon respondent no.1-
the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident; however,
has chosen not to contest the present appeal by entering his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
appearance.
[2.] With the able assistance of learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, the present appeal is taken up for final
hearing.
[3.] The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original
claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1988"), being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 18.12.2014
(hereinafter to be referred as "the impugned judgment and award")
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Amreli in
M.A.C.P. No.72 of 2007.
[3.1] By the said impugned judgment and award, though the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original
claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding them entitled
to recover the sum of Rs. 2,19,680/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual
realization, with proportionate costs and interest from the original
opponent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the owner and the Insurance Company of
the vehicle involved, jointly and severally; however, has refused to
grant their prayer of total amount of compensation of Rs. 4 Lakhs with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
interest. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement of amount of
compensation.
[4.] Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the
submissions made, this Court, vide order dated 17.06.2015, had
admitted the appeal. The record and the proceedings have been called
for.
[5.] Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned advocate for the appellants-
original claimants, has forcefully submitted that the Tribunal
committed gross error in answering the issue of quantum of
compensation by determining the amount of compensation on the
lower side. It is submitted that the deceased was earning by attending
the agricultural work as well as cattle grazing and selling of milk. In
the claim petition preferred by the original claimants as well as the
deposition of original claimant no.2, it was specifically pleaded that
the deceased was earning an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month;
however, the Tribunal has considered the income of Rs. 2,400/- per
month, by taking into consideration the minimum wages prevailing at
the time of the accident.
[5.1] It is further submitted that the deceased was aged 50
years at the time of the accident and, being self-employed, the
Tribunal ought to have considered the future rise in income, while
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
determining the future loss of income. While inviting my attention to
the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the learned
advocate has pointed out that the aforesaid aspect has been totally
lost sight of by the Tribunal. As regards the factor of the multiplier of
13 and 1/3rd deduction being considered towards personal expenses
of the deceased is concerned, the learned advocate has fairly
submitted that the same has rightly been applied in the facts of the
case.
[5.2] As regards the amount of compensation being
determined under the conventional heads, are concerned, reliance
was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in AIRONLINE 2018 SC
1249, to contend that the amount of compensation under the
conventional heads, is required to be re-considered.
[5.3] By making the aforesaid submissions, the learned
advocate for the appellants has urged this Court to allow the appeal
and to enhance the amount of compensation by suitably awarding the
interest on such enhanced amount of compensation right from the
date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual realization.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
[6.] Per contra, Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar, learned advocate for
the respondent no.2- Insurance Company, has submitted that, in the
absence of any documentary proof of income being produced on
record, the Tribunal has rightly applied the standards of minimum
wages, while considering the income of the deceased for the purpose
of compensation of dependency loss
[6.1] She has further invited my attention to the claimants,
who have been joined in the cause title of the claim petition. It is
submitted that indisputably, the claimants include the widow of the
deceased and two major sons being joined as applicant nos. 2 and 3
respectively. Referring to the findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal, she has pointed out the admission of the applicant No. 2,
who in his cross-examination, has fairly admitted the fact that
applicant nos. 2 and 3 were residing separately from their father. She
has, therefore, submitted that the case of the claimants may be
considered for the purpose of enhancement, insofar as the future rise
of income vis-a-vis dependency loss and two components of
conventional heads namely the loss of estate and the funeral
expenses, are concerned for the purpose of enhancement; however,
she has objected to the amount of consortium to be considered qua
the appellant nos. 2 and 3.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
[6.2] Lastly, learned advocate has invited my attention to the
issue of negligence to point out that, in absence of any ground being
raised by the learned advocate for the appellants, disputing the
determination of 20% negligence of the deceased towards the
occurrence of accident, the same may be considered while
determining the entitlement of amount of compensation.
[6.3] By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate
for the Insurance Company has, urged this Court to pass appropriate
orders, in the facts of the case.
[7.] In rejoinder, learned advocate appearing for the
appellants has placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court of
Delhi in the case of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Ramwati & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9512. Inviting my
attention to the facts of the case, the learned advocate has pointed
out that the original claimants include two daughters between the age
group of 18 to 20 years and a son aged about 21 years, apart from the
widow of the deceased. It was a fatal case, wherein the claim of the
claimants for loss of consortium, has been appreciated, and in appeal,
they were awarded enhanced amount of compensation under the loss
of consortium, in view of the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court
in cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General (supra) and United
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur And
Ors reported in AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3076. Referring to the
relevant observations of the High Court, it was pointed out that the
Court has also considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of National India Assurance Company Limited vs Somwati &
Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644. He has therefore submitted that
amount of parental consortium is to be awarded to the children
irrespective of their dependency on the deceased.
[8.] Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar, learned advocate for the
respondent no.2- Insurance Company, has disputed the aforesaid
submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants and has
attempted to distinguish the case, by referring to the facts of the case
and has pointed that in Para 14 of the aforesaid decision, the Court
has considered the cross-examination of the widow, who has admitted
to the fact that, her son was unmarried and, though both the
daughters were married, were residing together. She has also
admitted to the fact that all her children are unemployed and
dependents. Referring to the aforesaid cross-examination of the
widow as transpired in the proceedings before the Delhi High Court,
the learned advocate has pointed out that it is in this peculiar facts of
the case, whereby, the Court has considered their claim for loss of
consortium, as according to her, the loss of consortium can only be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
considered in case of minor children.
[9.] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and have considered their submissions, in light of the findings
and reasons assigned by the Tribunal as well as the legal principles laid
down in the decisions, as relied upon by the learned advocates for the
respective parties. The only question, which arises for consideration of
this Court in the present appeal is, as to whether the Tribunal
committed any error in determining the amount of compensation, in
the facts of the case and the evidence on record, while deciding the
claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988?
[10.] Before adverting to the issue involved, it would be
appropriate to note that the issue of negligence and the issue of
liability, in absence of any appeal being filed by either of the
respondents, have attained finality. Thus, the basic facts i.e. the
occurrence of the motor accident, the deceased having succumbed to
the fatal injuries, the involvement of the offending vehicle, and the
liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the
vehicle, have attained finality.
[11.] Now, so far as the challenge to the impugned judgment
and award on the issue of quantum of compensation is concerned, in
the absence of any documentary proof of income being produced on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
record, the learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants has
not pressed the issue of income being determined, in light of the
minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident. Thus, the
income of the deceased is considered as Rs. 2,400/- per month.
[12.] Having noted the findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal, as rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for the
appellants, the Tribunal has lost complete sight of the factor of future
rise of income. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellant is entitled to the future
rise of income for the purpose of determination of just and fair
amount of compensation. Considering the fact that the deceased was
earning his livelihood by attending the agricultural work, cattle
grazing, selling of milk, and looking at the age of the deceased to be
50 years, the deceased being self-employed, his case for future rise of
income can be considered to the extent of 25% of the established
income. Thus, the monthly future rise of income can be considered at
Rs. 3,000/-, which comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. In the absence of
any challenge being made with regard to the 1/3 rd deduction of the
aforesaid income towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased is concerned, and having noted the well-settled principles
laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport
Corp.& Anr reported in (2009) 2 ACJ 1298, the Tribunal has rightly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
considered 1/3rd deduction, in the facts of the case. As regards the
multiplier of 13 being applied, the same has remained unchallenged.
Thus, the dependency loss of the deceased can be considered as Rs.
3,12,000/-.
[13.] As regards the amount of compensation to be awarded
under the conventional heads are concerned; the amount of
compensation under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses
are concerned, the same being not disputed, enhanced to Rs. 18,150/-
respectively.
[14.] This brings me to the core controversy involved in the
matter, the amount of compensation to be considered under the head
of loss of consortium is concerned. It would be appropriate to revisit
the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma
General (supra), which reads thus:
"20. MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded
any compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and
Loss of Estate, which are the other conventional heads under
which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as
recognized by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra).
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.
The Court is dutybound and entitled to award "just
compensation", irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf
was raised by the Claimant. In exercise of our power under
Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it
appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards Loss of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is
a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium',
'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'. The right to
consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort,
guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss
to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husbandwife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation.
21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training.
21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and
agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest
agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing
norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.
Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the
value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a
child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be
awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death
of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a
compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in
cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their
minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are
entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of
Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children
who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the
Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this
count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the
principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of
Filial Consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding
compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in
Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it
appropriate to award the father and the sister of the
deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial
Consortium.
25. In light of the above mentioned discussion,
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to the following
amounts:
Head Compensation awarded
i. Income: Rs. 6,000
ii. Future Prospects: Rs. 2,400 (i.e. 40% of the
income)
iii. Deduction towards Rs. 2,800 [i.e. 1/3rd of (Rs.6,000 +
personal expenditure: Rs.2,400)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
iv. Total Income: Rs. 5,600 [i.e. 2/3rd of (Rs.6,000 +
Rs.2,400]
vi. Loss of future income Rs. 12,09,600 (Rs.5,600 x 12 x 18)
vii. Loss of love and Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 each)
affection:
viii. Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000
ix. Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000
x. Loss of Filial Consortium Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 payable to
each of Respondent Nos.1 and 2)
Total compensation Rs. 14,25,600 alongwith Interest @
awarded: 12% p.a. from the date of filing of
the Claim petition till payment.
[14.1] Thus, the Supreme Court has broadly considered the term
"consortium" in legal parlance, as a compendious term which
encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial
consortium'. It is further observed that the right to consortium would
include the loss, which a family suffers towards the loss of company,
care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased.
The term "parental consortium" is granted to the child, considering
the premature death of a parent, towards loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." Thus,
the Supreme Court has considered the term "consortium" reflecting
the changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationship
of the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
[15.] In my view, irrespective of the factor of dependency of
the children, the entitlement of loss of consortium is to be considered
on the broad principles of the parental aid, protection, affection,
society, discipline, guidance and training of the parent, whose life has
been curtailed unfortunately in a motor vehicle accident.
[16.] Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the
Supreme Court, in my view, merely because the sons were not residing
with the deceased at the time of the accident or were not dependent
on the income of the deceased, would not be a relevant criteria for
the purpose of consideration of the entitlement to consortium.
[17.] At this stage, it would also be appropriate to refer the
relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra), on the reasonable figures to be awarded under
conventional heads. It held thus:-
"59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should
be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years."
[18.] Considering the aforesaid observations, the Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), more particularly, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
relevant observations made in para 59.8, the amount of Rs. 40,000/-
has been fixed as payable towards the loss of consortium, which is
required to be revisited by considering 10% rise at the end of every
three years henceforth i.e. from the year 2017. Considering the fact
that the claimants were pursuing the present appeal for enhancement
of the amount of compensation, are hereby extended the benefit of
10% rise on the aforesaid fixed amount of consortium. Hence, the
claimants, which include the widow of the deceased and two major
sons of the deceased, are held entitled to an amount of Rs. 48,400/-
each towards the loss of consortium.
[19.] For the foregoing reasons, the total amount of
compensation is hereby enhanced to the tune of Rs.4,93,500/- as
against the awarded amount of Rs.2,19,680/-. After considering the
fact that the deceased himself was found 20% negligent, the revised
calculation of the enhanced amount of compensation is reproduced in
tabular form hereunder:
Under the Head of Compensation Compensation
Awarded by the of Rs.
Tribunal in Rs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
Future loss of income 2,49,600/- 3,12,000/-
Monthly income = Rs.2400/-
Prospective income 25%
(Rs.2400/- + 25%) = Rs.3000/-
Deduction 1/3
(Rs.3000/3 = Rs.1000/-)
Total Income
[Rs.3000 - Rs. 1000 = Rs. 2000/-]
(Rs.2000 x 12 x 13) =
Rs.3,12,000/-
Loss of estate 10,000/- 18,150/-
Loss of consortium 10,000/- 1,45,200/-
(Rs.48,400 x 3= Rs.1,45,200/-)
Loss of Funeral expenses 5,000/- 18,150/-
Total 2,74,600/- 4,93,500/-
Negligency= 54,920/- 98,700/-
20% of Rs. 4,93,500/- = Rs.
98,700/-
Grand Total 2,19,680/- 3,94,800/-
Less awarded amount of 2,19,680/-
compensation by Tribunal
Enhanced amount 1,75,120/-
(Rs.3,94,800- 2,19,680-)=
Interest @9%
[20.] With the above, the present First Appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 18.12.2014 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Amreli in M.A.C.P.
No.72 of 2007, is hereby modified by enhancing the amount of Rs.
1,75,120/- towards total compensation to the original claimants-
appellants herein with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of
9% per annum, to be realized from the original opponent nos.1 and 2
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/638/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
undefined
i.e. the owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, jointly
and severally, from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual
realization.
[21.] The respondents- original opponents are directed to
deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate
cost and interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of the copy of this order. On deposit of the aforesaid enhanced
amount by the respondents, the Tribunal is directed to release and
disburse the aforesaid amount in favour of the original claimants,
subject to due verification, strictly in accordance with the guidelines
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. While making the
payment, learned Tribunal shall deduct the Court Fees, if not paid, in
accordance with prevailing Rule. Let the aforesaid exercise be
undertaken by the Tribunal within a period of One Week from the
date of deposit of the award amount.
[22.] With these observations, the First Appeal stands disposed
of in the aforesaid terms. Record and proceedings are directed to be
sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with the Writ of
this judgment.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
