[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Vinubhai Govindbhai -Decd. Through ... vs Owner Of Tanker No.Hr-38-L-9072 M/S ... on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1665 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VINUBHAI GOVINDBHAI -DECD. THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS, & ORS.
Versus
OWNER OF TANKER NO.HR-38-L-9072 M/S INDRARAJ BHADU MOVERS &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2
MR HARSHAD K PATEL(2844) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS. DHWANI LAKHANI FOR MR PANKAJ R DESAI(3120) for the Defendant(s)
No. 5,6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 18/03/2026
JUDGMENT
Heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the appellants-
original claimants, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for the
respondent no.2-United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter
to be referred as "the Insurance Company"), and learned advocate Ms.
Dhwani Lakhani for Mr. Pankaj R. Desai, learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
respondent nos.5 and 6, who are the parents of the deceased. Despite
service notice of admission of appeal being duly served upon
respondent nos.1, 3 and 4, who are the owners of the respective
vehicles and Insurance Company of the second vehicle involved, being
exonerated, have chosen not to enter appearance and contest the
present appeal.
[2.] With the able assistance of learned advocates on record
for the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.
[3.] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of
1988") at the instance of the original claimants, who are the widow
and the minor son of the deceased, who had unfortunately succumbed
to the injury caused in the motor vehicle accident. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 12.05.2015
(hereinafter to be referred as "the impugned judgment and award")
passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Rajkot in
M.A.C.P. No.489 of 2008, by this appeal, the appellants are praying for
enhancement of further amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.
1,89,000/- , with proportionate costs and interest.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
[4.] Learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants
has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground
of the quantum of compensation being determined on the lower side.
The attention of this Court was invited to the findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal, while considering the issue of the quantum
of compensation. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that the
deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by working as a driver and
an additional income of Rs. 1,000/- per month from agricultural
resources; however, in absence of any corroborative evidence
produced in this regard, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income
of the deceased as a driver at the rate of Rs. 2,700/- per month.
[4.1] Referring to the aforesaid findings and reasons assigned
by the Tribunal, the learned advocate has submitted that it is a well-
settled principles of law that in absence of any documentary proof of
income being brought on record, the Tribunal in its wisdom, in order
to award just and proper amount of compensation, can refer to the
yardstick of minimum wages. She has, therefore, invited my attention
to the date of occurrence of the accident, which is reported to be
01.12.2007, and by referring to the minimum wages prevailing at the
relevant point of time, has urged this Court to consider the income of
the deceased as Rs. 2,800/- per month.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
[4.2] Learned advocate has further submitted that admittedly
the age of the deceased has been fixed as 35 years by considering the
copy of the birth certificate produced on record at Exh. 29, wherein
the date of birth is indicated as 15.06.1972. Considering the aforesaid
age of the deceased, in view of the well-settled principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, there should be addition of 40% future rise of the aforesaid
established income in order to determine the amount of
compensation towards the dependency loss. She has further
submitted that considering the fact that the deceased was survived by
four members in the family, the Tribunal has rightly considered 1/3 rd
deduction and has urged this Court to accordingly consider the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
[4.3] Learned advocate has further invited my attention to the
fact that the Tribunal has erroneously considered the multiplier of 15
instead of 16, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.&
Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, which provides that in case of the
victim of an accident, falling between the age group of 31 to 35 years,
the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 16, and not 15.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
[4.4] Lastly, the learned advocate has urged this Court to
reconsider the amount of compensation awarded under the
conventional heads, in view of the well-settled principles laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). It is submitted
that though the appellants before this Court, are the wife and the
minor son of the deceased; however, the aged parents of the
deceased have also been joined as parties to the proceedings as
respondents nos. 5 and 6. She has appealed to the Court to consider
the enhancement of loss of consortium, by bearing in mind the
parents of the deceased as well. Learned advocate has, therefore,
urged this Court to allow the appeal and to enhance the amount of
compensation with proportionate costs and interest.
[5.] Per contra, learned advocate appearing for respondent
no. 2- Insurance Company has vehemently objected to the aforesaid
submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants. It is
submitted that in the facts of the case and the evidence brought on
record, the Tribunal has awarded just and fair amount of
compensation, which calls for no interference of this Court in the
present appeal. As regards the submissions made by the learned
advocate for considering the enhancement of amount of
compensation under conventional heads are concerned, the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
advocate has submitted that in view of the well-settled principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in this regard, the Court may
appropriately consider; however, the learned advocate has objected
to the enhancement sought for at the instance of the parents of the
deceased towards the loss of consortium, as they have not preferred
any appeal. Learned advocate has, therefore, prayed for the dismissal
of the present appeal.
[6.] Learned advocate Ms. Dhwani Lakhani appearing for
respondents nos. 5 and 6, has supported the submissions made by the
learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants; however, has
urged this Court to pass appropriate order of apportionment of the
amount of compensation, in case, if the Court is inclined to accept the
appeal of the appellants for enhancement.
[7.] I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and have also appreciated their submissions, in
light of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal. I have also
closely re-appreciated the evidence on record, in light of the legal
principles laid down by the Supreme Court, as relied upon by the
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, during the
course of the hearing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
[8.] At the outset, it would be appropriate to note that the
present appeal is confined to the issue of the quantum of
compensation. In absence of any appeal or cross-objections being filed
by either of the respondents, assailing the impugned judgment and
award, the issue of negligence and the liability, has attained finality.
The basic facts i.e. the deceased having succumbed to the fatal
injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident, the involvement of the
vehicle, and the liability of the Insurance Company, have remained
unchallenged.
[9.] Thus, the only question, which arises for consideration of
this Court in the present appeal is, as to whether the Tribunal
committed any error in facts and in law, while answering the issue of
the quantum of compensation, in the claim petition preferred under
Section 166 of the Act of 1988?
[10.] The core contention, which is required to be considered at
the outset, is the income of the deceased being determined on the
lower side. On close appreciation of the findings and reasons assigned
by the Tribunal; the Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary proof
of income being brought on record, though has accepted the case of
the claimants that the deceased was earning through driving, has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
confined the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 2,700/- per
month only. As rightly pointed out by learned advocate for the
appellants, in light of the well-settled legal principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav vs The New India
Insurance Co.Ltd reported in 2011 (10) SCC 683 which holds that
even in absence of any proof of income produced on record, the
Tribunals are at liberty to determine the income of the victim of the
accident, in light of the minimum wages, as may be notified by the
State Government from time to time.
[11.] Considering the fact that the accident had taken place on
01.12.2007, and having appreciated the minimum wages notified by
the State Government at the relevant point of time, in my view, the
case of the appellants of considering the income of the deceased as
Rs. 2,800/- per month is required to be accepted. Thus, the income of
the deceased is required to be re-considered and re-determined as Rs.
2,800/- per month. Considering the well-settled principles of law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and
the age of the deceased as 35 years, and the deceased being self-
employed, the claimants shall be entitled to future rise to the extent
of 40% of the aforesaid established income for the purpose of
determination of the dependency loss.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
[12.] Considering the fact that the deceased was survived by
four members in the family including the widow, minor son and the
aged parents, the Tribunal ought to have considered 1/4 th deduction
instead of 1/3rd, in view of the observations made in Para 30 in the
case of Sarla Verma (supra). Considering the aforesaid components,
the dependency loss is required to be reconsidered and is determined
as Rs. 2,800/- and after applying 40% future rise is determined as Rs.
3,920/- per month ( Rs.2800 x 40%). Applying 1/4 th deduction towards
personal loss and living expenses of the deceased, the actual loss
sustained by the claimants comes to Rs. 2940/- (Rs.3920- Rs.980).
[13.] As regards the multiplier to be adopted, as observed in
Para 42 of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it would
be appropriate to consider the multiplier of 16 instead of 15, as
considered by the Tribunal, considering the fact that the age of the
deceased was 35 years at the time of accident. Considering the
aforesaid components, the dependency loss is, therefore, determined
as Rs. 5,64,480/- (Rs.2940 x12x16).
[14.] Having held so, as regards the amount of compensation
under the conventional heads are concerned, as rightly submitted by
learned advocates, the same is required to be reconsidered, in light of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark decisions of
Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu
Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1249.
Considering the fact that the deceased was survived by widow, she
shall be entitled to loss of spousal consortium of Rs.48,400/-. Similarly,
the minor son having deprived of love and affection of his father, shall
be entitled to parental consortium of Rs.48,400/-. As objected by
learned advocate for the respondent no.2-Insurance Company, having
noted the same, though the parents have chosen not to prefer any
appeal; however, considering the object of the just and fair amount of
compensation and the beneficial legislation, this Court is inclined to
reconsider the amount of consortium being awarded to the aged
parents as well. In view of the well settled principles, the aged parents
are also hereby held entitled to loss of filial consortium, which is re-
determined and fixed as Rs.96,800/-. As regards the amount of
compensation under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate is
concerned, the same is re-determined as Rs.18,150/- respectively.
[15.] For the foregoing reasons, the total amount of
compensation is hereby enhanced to the tune of Rs.2,83,380/- as
against the awarded amount of Rs.5,11,000/-. The revised calculation
of the enhanced amount of compensation is reproduced in tabular
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
form hereunder:
Under the Head of Compensation Awarded
by this Court in Rs.
Loss of future income 5,64,480/-
Loss of Consortium 1,93,600/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Loss of Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Grand Total 7,94,380/-
Less awarded amount of 5,11,000/-
compensation by Tribunal
Enhanced Amount 2,83,380/-
(Rs.7,94,380-5,11,000)
Interest 8%
[16.] With the above, the present First Appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 12.05.2015 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No.489 of 2008, is
hereby modified by enhancing the amount of Rs.2,83,380/- towards
total compensation to the original claimants-appellants herein with
proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization.
[17.] The respondent no.2-Insurance Company is 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 respondent no.2-Insurance Company, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1665/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
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/Court 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.
[18.] With these observations, the First Appeal stands disposed
of in the aforesaid terms. Record and proceedings, if any, are directed
to be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with the
Writ of this judgment.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
