SWATIBEN ASHWINSINH GOHIL vs BACHUBHAI RAMESHBHAI VASAVA

C/FA/1888/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632332018)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1888 of 2019
==================================================
SWATIBEN ASHWINSINH GOHIL & ORS.
Versus
BACHUBHAI RAMESHBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance :
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 02/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
[1] Occurrence of an accident on 23.11.2013 between a
motorcycle and a truck is not in dispute. As a result of the said
accident, the rider of the motorcycle, a 26-year-old who was
working as a graphic artist in a private company, was killed.
Consequently, his wife, his minor child and his mother preferred
a claim petition.
[2] The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence, came to the
conclusion that the driver of the truck was responsible for the
accident, and it proceeded to determine the compensation at
Rs.21,04,000/-. For arriving at the said sum, the Tribunal
assessed the monthly income at Rs.9,218/-, and it also held that
the driver of the truck was alone responsible for the accident.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 12:00:55 IST 2026

C/FA/1888/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632332018)
[3] The insurer has not challenged either the finding
regarding negligence or the quantum of compensation, and it is
only the claimants who have preferred the present appeal.
[4] It is the contention of the counsel for the claimants that
the service agreement entered into by the deceased with his
employer was placed on record, which indicated that the total
cost to the company every month was Rs.19,181/- towards the
services rendered by the deceased. He, therefore, submits that
this sum ought to have been accepted in its entirety, whereas
the Tribunal has disallowed the allowances granted and arrived
at a sum of Rs.9,280/-.
[5] The service agreement which is produced on record
indicates that the deceased was drawing a gross salary of
Rs.8,000/-, and was thereafter also entitled to sums towards
statutory bonus, leave encashment, retention allowance,
performance allowance, night shift benchmark allowance, night
shift attendance incentive, night shift allowance, EPF and
employer ESIC contribution. These allowances would have to be
considered as a part of the total emoluments that he was
earning every month. It is settled law that apart from the
professional tax, no other allowance can be disallowed by the
Tribunal while considering the income of the deceased.
[6] In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 12:00:55 IST 2026

C/FA/1888/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632332018)
the deceased was earning only Rs.9,280/- is set aside, and it is
hereby held that he was earning a sum of Rs. 19,181/- per
month.
[7] The deceased was aged about 26 years and, consequently,
a multiplier of 17 would be applicable. As a consequence, the
claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,52,062.4/-
towards loss of dependency.
[8] In light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 ,
each of the legal heirs, i.e., the widow and two children, would
be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- (52,000 x 3) towards loss of
consortium. The appellants are also entitled for Rs.19,500/-
towards the loss to estate and Rs.19,500/- towards funeral
expenses.
[9] Thus, in substitution of the award passed by the Tribunal,
the claimants would be entitled to the following sums:-
Income (19181x12) Rs.2,30,172/-
Prospective Income (40%) Rs.92,068.8/-
Total Rs.3,22,240.8/-
Deduction (1/3rd) - Rs.1,07,413.6/-
Dependency Loss Rs.2,14,827.2/-
Multiplier X 17
Future Loss of income Rs.36,52,062.4/-
Consortium Rs.1,56,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.19,500/-
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 12:00:55 IST 2026

C/FA/1888/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632332018)
Funeral Rs.19,500/-
Total Rs.38,47,063/-
Awarded Rs.21,04,000/-
Additional Compensation Rs.17,43,063/-
[10] The appeal is hereby partly allowed. The claimants are
entitled to an additional sum of Rs.17,43,063/- with 9% interest
from the date of the claim petition filed by the claimants before
the Tribunal till its realization. The enhanced amount shall be
deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of TEN
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
[11] The enhanced amount which shall be deposited by the
Insurance Company pursuant to this order shall be disbursed to
the claimants upon proper verification by NEFT / RTGS.
[12] R & P if called for, be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 12:00:55 IST 2026