JEMALBHAI BHURABHAI BARIYA vs BUDH RAM DUNGRA RAM
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/160/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240015622026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 160 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
===========================================================
JEMALBHAI BHURABHAI BARIYA & ANR.
Versus
BUDH RAM DUNGRA RAM & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST NOT RECEIVED BACK for the
Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 26/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellants-original claimants under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Dahod, in MACP No.262 of 2019, vide
judgment and award dated 06.10.2025, whereby
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded against the
opponents, jointly and severally, with proportionate costs
and interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 01.10.2019, till
31.03.2021, and at the rate of 7% per annum from
01.04.2021 till realisation of the awarded amount.
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:27:06 IST 2026
C/FA/160/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240015622026)
2. Short facts of the case are as follows:
2.1 The present appellants-original claimants Nos. 1 and
2 preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of
Rs.8,50,000/- for the death of minor Vikas Jemalbhai
Bariya in a vehicular accident that took place on
20.03.2019.
2.2 On the date of the accident, minor Vikas was
travelling in ST Bus No. GJ-18-Z-5337 along with his
parents. At about 02:30 a.m., when the ST bus was
proceeding at a moderate speed on the highway near the
Bavla-Sanand cross-road, original opponent No. 1 came
from the Bavla side driving Motor Truck No. RJ-07-GC-
6845 in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over
the steering. As a result, the truck moved to one side and
dashed against the ST bus, causing the bus to turn two to
three times into a gutter. Consequently, minor Vikas
sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.
2.3 The parents of minor Vikas preferred the Claim
Petition seeking compensation for his death. The learned
Tribunal considered the age of the deceased to be
approximately five months and assessed his annual
income at Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:27:06 IST 2026
C/FA/160/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240015622026)
awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by
the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have
preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi for the
appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal assessed
the annual income of the minor deceased at Rs.30,000/-
and did not award any amount towards future prospects.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants, in support of
his submissions, relied upon the judgment rendered by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.
2886 of 2025 in the case of Lalabhai Chelabhai
Chauhan Vs. Virendrasinh Kundansinh Jadav and
Ors. He submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench had relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai
Rabari and Anr. , Neutral Citation - 2025 INSC 1070.
He further submitted that, considering the minimum
wages prevailing at the time of the accident in the year
2019, the monthly income ought to be considered at
Rs.8,560/-, with an addition of 40% towards future
prospects. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned
judgment and award is required to be modified and the
compensation enhanced accordingly.
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:27:06 IST 2026
C/FA/160/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240015622026)
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Yogi K.
Gadhia for the insurance company submitted that the
award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper,
considering that the deceased was only five months old at
the time of the accident. He, therefore, submitted that
appropriate orders may be passed.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for both sides.
7. Considering the rival submissions made by the
learned advocates appearing for both sides, it appears
that the present appeal has been filed on the limited
ground that the learned Tribunal has committed an error
in assessing the quantum of compensation by not
considering the income of the deceased child, who was 5
months old at the time of the accident, on the basis of
minimum wages. Further, as per the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Kajal Vs. Jagdish
Chand, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, Baby Sakshi
Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and Anr. , reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692 , and Hitesh Nagjibhai
Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Anr. ,
Neutral Citation - 2025 INSC 1070 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has clarified that, in cases involving a
child who has suffered injuries or died, the calculation of
loss of income is required to be made on the basis of the
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:27:06 IST 2026
C/FA/160/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240015622026)
minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the
respective State at the relevant point of time. Considering
the aforesaid facts of the present case, the learned
Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased
child at Rs.30,000/- per annum. However, as the accident
took place on 20.03.2019, the monthly income is required
to be considered at Rs.8,560/- as per the applicable
minimum wages at the relevant time.
8. Moreover, in view of the judgments in the cases of
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 ,
and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the learned Tribunal
erred in not considering future prospective income.
However, this Court is of the view that an addition of 40%
towards future prospects is required to be considered.
The deceased was aged 5 months at the time of the
accident and, hence, the Tribunal has rightly considered
multiplier of 18. However, as the deceased was bachelor
at the time of accident, ½ deduction as personal
expenditure and living of the deceased is required to be
considered to award just and proper compensation.
9. Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased
at Rs.8,560/- per month and adding 40% towards future
prospects, i.e. Rs.3,424/-, the monthly income comes to
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:27:06 IST 2026
C/FA/160/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240015622026)
Rs.11,984/-. After deducting ½ towards the personal and
living expenses of the deceased, i.e. Rs.5,992/-, the
monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,992/-. In view
of the above, the compensation under the head of loss of
future income is required to be reassessed at Rs.5,992/- ×
12 × 18 = Rs.12,94,272/-. After deducting the amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal
under this head, the appellants are entitled to an
additional amount of Rs.8,44,272/- towards loss of future
income.
9. Further, the learned Tribunal, while relying on the
judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) , has awarded
Rs.50,000/- under the three conventional heads. However,
this Court is of the view that the amount is required to be
reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.96,800/-
towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount under
the three conventional heads is reassessed as
Rs.1,33,100/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an
additional amount of Rs.83,100/- under the three
conventional heads, after adjusting the amount of
Rs.50,000/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal.
10. As discused above, the appellant is entitled to get
compensation computed as under:
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:27:06 IST 2026
C/FA/160/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240015622026)
Heads Awarded by
Reassessed by
Tribunal
this Court
Loss of Dependency Rs.4,50,000/- Rs.12,94,272/-,
including additional
amount of
Rs.8,44,272/-
Loss of Love and
Affection
Rs.50,000/- Nil
Loss of Estate Nil Rs.18,150/-
Funeral Expenses Nil Rs.18,150/-
Loss of Consortium Nil Rs.96,800/-
Total
Compesation
Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.14,22,372/-,
including total
additional
amount of
Rs.9,22,372/-
11. In view of the above, as the Tribunal has awarded
total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, the appellants are
entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.9,22,372/- with
proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the
learned Tribunal.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Nagappa
Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others , reported in (2003) 2
Supreme Court Cases 274 , has observed that there is
no restriction that compensation could be awarded only
up to the amount claimed by the claimant and that, in an
appropriate case, where, from the evidence brought on
record, the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is
entitled to get more compensation than claimed, an
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:27:06 IST 2026
C/FA/160/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240015622026)
amount of compensation exceeding the amount claimed
can be awarded.
13. Hence, the present appeal is partly allowed. The
judgment and award dated 06.10.2025 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod, in
MACP No.262 of 2019 stands modified to the aforesaid
extent. The rest of the judgment and award remains
unaltered. The respondents shall deposit the said
additional amount of Rs.9,22,372/- along with interest as
awarded by the Tribunal before the Tribunal within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The Record and Proceedings be remitted back to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
14. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or
deduct the deficit court fees on the enhanced amount and
thereafter, disburse the amount accordingly.
15. Award to be drawn accordingly.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
STANCY GOMES
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 20:27:06 IST 2026