DHARMISHTHABA LALUBHA VALA vs KANIYALAL MOHANLAL KOTAK
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3272/2013 (GJHC240400042013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3272 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHARMISHTHABA LALUBHA VALA
Versus
KANIYALAL MOHANLAL KOTAK & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 31/08/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 08.07.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in MACP No.1268/2004, whereby the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.80,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on
14.09.2004, when the deceased-Dharmishthaba Lalubha Vala was
travelling in a motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ.3.NN.9238 as a
pillion rider, in the meantime, the driver of truck bearing registration
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 14:39:42 IST 2026
C/FA/3272/2013 (GJHC240400042013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
no.GJ.10.V.6197 came by driving the said truck at an excessive speed,
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the said motorcycle, in
which the deceased was travelling. Due to the impact of the said
accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the
injuries.
3. On being served, the respondent no.2/insurance company filed its
written statement at Exh.13, thereby denying all the averments made in
the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective
parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.80,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of
8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the original claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. Mr. Premal S. Rachh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted that at the time
of accident, the deceased was aged about 22 years and she was
studying in S.Y.B.Com. He further submitted that the income of the
deceased could not be proved on record by leading the cogent
evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of
the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. He submitted that in absence
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 14:39:42 IST 2026
C/FA/3272/2013 (GJHC240400042013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
of any cogent evidence of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. In
support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed the
reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Anr.,
reported in 2025 ACJ 1986.
8. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant further submitted that
considering the age of the deceased, the monthly income of the
deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% on account of future
prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submitted
that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier on the basis of age
of the original claimant instead of applying the multiplier on the basis of
the age of the deceased. In support of his contention, learned counsel
for the appellant placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr ., reported in AIR (2009) 6 SC 3104.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation under
conventional heads, therefore, he prayed for enhancement of
compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Sidram Vs. The
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited &
Anr., reported in 2022 INSC 1202.
10. Per contra, Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned counsel appearing on
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 14:39:42 IST 2026
C/FA/3272/2013 (GJHC240400042013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
behalf of respondent no.2/insurance company vehemently submitted
that at the time of accident, the deceased was studying in S.Y.B.Com.,
therefore, she was not having any actual income. He submitted that in
absence of any actual income, the learned Tribunal has rightly
assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. He further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation
under all the heads of compensation, therefore, the captioned appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
11. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
appellant/claimant has challenged the impugned judgment and award
on the ground of quantum.
12. So far as the quantum is concerned, at the time of accident, the
deceased was studying in S.Y.B.Com., therefore, she was not having
any actual income at the time of accident. In case of Hitesh Nagjibhai
Patel (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in case of a student,
the income has to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages for the
skilled worker prevalent at the time of accident. In the case on hand, the
accident took place on 14.09.2004. At that relevant point of time, the
minimum wages for the skilled worker was Rs.2,300/- per month as
notified by the Government of Gujarat. Therefore, the income of the
deceased is reassessed at Rs.2,300/- per month. It is not in dispute that
at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 22 years,
therefore, 40% of the monthly income is added on account of future
prospects of the deceased in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sidram (supra). Thus,
after adding 40% to the monthly income, it would come to Rs.3,220/- i.e.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 14:39:42 IST 2026
C/FA/3272/2013 (GJHC240400042013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
(2,300+2,300X40%). It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the
deceased was bachelor, therefore, 1/2 of the monthly income is
deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, after
deducting 1/2 on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the
monthly income for calculating the future loss of dependency would
come to Rs.1,610/- i.e. (3,220-3,220X1/2). Thus, applying the multiplier
of 18 as per the age of the deceased, the future loss of dependency
would come to Rs.3,47,760/- i.e. (1,610X12X18).
13. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under
the head of loss of estate and a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of
funeral expenses. The compensation awarded under these heads is
enhanced to Rs.18,150/- under each head in view of the ratio laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
14. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under
the head of loss of consortium. It is evident from the record that the
deceased was survived by his mother, therefore, a sum of Rs.48,400/-
is awarded under the head of loss of consortium in view of the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram
(supra).
15. In view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant shall be
entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following
heads:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Future loss of dependency 3,47,760/-
2. Loss of consortium 48,400/-
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 14:39:42 IST 2026
C/FA/3272/2013 (GJHC240400042013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
3. Loss of estate 18,150/-
4. Funeral expenses 18,150/-
Total 4,32,460/-
16. The learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/-
as a compensation, therefore, the original claimant/appellant shall be
entitled for additional compensation of Rs.3,52,460/- i.e. (4,32,460-
80,000). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of
8% per annum, therefore, the original claimant/appellant shall be
entitled for the same rate of interest on additional amount of
compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
17. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands
allowed partly and the impugned judgment and award is to be modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondent no.2/insurance company shall
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest within
a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
18. Upon depositing of the said amount of compensation, the learned
Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation along with
interest to the original claimant/appellant herein after deducting deficit of
Court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any, lying
deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted
to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
19. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 14:39:42 IST 2026