KUSUMBEN PRAVINCHANDRA JOSHI vs MAHESH SITARAM CHAUHAN
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/709/2016 (GJHC240421722016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 709 of 2016
==========================================================
KUSUMBEN PRAVINCHANDRA JOSHI & ORS.
Versus
MAHESH SITARAM CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR RAKESH B SHARMA(2521) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 01/09/2026
JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. This is an appeal by the claimants.
2. The accident which occurred on 30.07.2009, is not in dispute.
In the said accident, Pravinchandra Joshi was driving a two-wheeler,
which collided with a truck, as a result of which he died in the
accident.
3. His wife and son filed a claim petition, and the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (AUXI.), Kheda at Nadiad, on consideration of the
evidence, assessed his monthly income as Rs. 27,000/-, and, taking
into consideration his age of 49 years, applied the multiplier of 13 and
awarded the following sums as damages:
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:55:30 IST 2026
C/FA/709/2016 (GJHC240421722016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
Rs.28,08,000/- For future loss of amenities
Rs.01,00,000/- For consortium
Rs.01,00,000/- For love & affection
Rs.00,25,000/- For funeral charges
Rs.30,33,000/- Total
4. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants are in appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the Tribunal
has committed an error in not awarding future prospects. She also
submits that the other income of the deceased i.e., the agricultural
income has also not been taken into consideration and therefore, the
compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand,
contends that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are just and
proper and do not call for a interference, having regard to the totality
of circumstances.
7. As far as the determination of the monthly income is concerned,
the evidence indicates that the deceased was a teacher in a primary
school, and the Tribunal, on consideration of the documentary
evidence, has ascertained the income at Rs. 26,221/-. Since, this
ascertainment is on the basis of documentary evidence, the same does
not require any disturbance.
8. As regards the contention that the Tribunal has erred in not
taking into consideration the entire income claimed from the
deceased’s agricultural activities, it is observed that the Tribunal has
taken into consideration agricultural income of Rs. 779/- per month
and added the same to the monthly income of the deceased, i.e., Rs.
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:55:30 IST 2026
C/FA/709/2016 (GJHC240421722016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
26,221/-, and arrived at a sum of Rs. 27,000/- per month. In our
view, the assessment of agricultural income at Rs. 779/- per month,
in the absence of credible evidence to establish the said agricultural
income, is just and proper and does not call for interference.
9. However, the Tribunal has not granted any future prospects.
The Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs.
Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, has categorically held
that, if the deceased was having a permanent job, he would be entitled
to future prospects and having regard to the fact that the deceased
was aged 49 years, in accordance with the judgment rendered in
Pranay Sethi (supra), the income would have to be supplemented by
30% future prospects. Consequently, the monthly income of the
deceased would be Rs. 35,100/-. The deceased had a wife and two
sons as dependents and hence, one-fourth of his income shall have to
be deducted towards personal expenditure. Consequently, the
monthly income for the purpose of calculating the loss of future
income would be Rs. 26,325/-.
10. Since, the deceased was aged 49 years, a multiplier of 13 would
be adopted. Consequently, the claimants will be entitled for a sum of
Rs. 41,06,700/- towards loss of future income.
11. In accordance with the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) read
with the dictum of Apex Court in Reena Vs. Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, reported at 2026
(0) AIJEL-SC 77486, the claimants would also be entitled for loss of
consortium and other non-pecuniary sums amounting to Rs.
1,56,000/- (52,000/- x 3) and further sum of Rs. 19,500/- each for
loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, modification of the
award of the Tribunal, the following sums are awarded:
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:55:30 IST 2026
C/FA/709/2016 (GJHC240421722016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 41,06,700/-
Loss of estate 19,500/-
Loss of consortium 1,56,000/-
Funeral expenses 19,500/-
Total 43,01,700/-
Compensation awarded by
30,33,000/-
the Tribunal
Enhanced Amount 12,68,700/-
12. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum. In our view, it would be appropriate to award interest at the
rate of 9% per annum.
13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. R&P, if any, be sent
back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
14. The terms of disbursement shall be as per the award of the
Tribunal.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
YASH ARORA
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:55:30 IST 2026