LAGVIBEN KARANJI RABARI vs VITTALBHAI SOMABHAI THAKARDA

C/FA/1674/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240394702009)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1674 of 2009
==========================================================
LAGVIBEN KARANJI RABARI & ORS.
Versus
VITTALBHAI SOMABHAI THAKARDA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
ARUNKUMAR R DAVE(8949) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
SERVED BY PUBLICATION IN NEWS for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
SHARMISHTA A DAVE(8735) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 14/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award dated 06.03.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara (in brief, ‘Tribunal’), in MACP
No. 1209 of 2001, whereby, the learned tribunal granted total
compensation of Rs.2,74,600/- along with 7.5% interest per
annum, the original claimants have filed the present appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after, ‘M.V.
Act’), marking liability on Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the
compensation jointly or severally.
2. The facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of deciding
this appeal, are as under;
On 27.02.2001, in the evening at about 06:00 p.m., the deceased
Karanji and others had gone to Savli Market for purchasing
grains and after completing the shopping, when the deceased
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:35 IST 2026

C/FA/1674/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240394702009)
Karanji was sitting near the wall of the Government Guest
House, Savali, for bus going towards his village, i.e. Itolapura,
opponent No.1-driver drove his jeep, bearing registration No. GJ-
6-AA-7073, in reverse in rash and negligent manner. On account
of that, the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot.
Therefore, an FIR, being C.R. No. I-15/2001, came to be lodged
with Savli Police Station against opponent No.1-driver. The
deceased left behind his widow and five children.
2.1 In the above background, the appellants-claimants filed
the claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, contending
that the deceased was aged about 40 years and was hale and
hearty and he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by doing
business of sheep and goat breeding and thereby, claimed total
compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. It was also contended that the
deceased was the sole breadwinner and supporter of the family.
2.2 After hearing both the sides and after evaluating the
evidence on record, the tribunal passed the impugned judgment
and award, as referred to in Paragraph-1 herein above. Hence,
the present appeal.
3. Heard, learned advocate, Mr. Bhatt, for the appellants-
claimants and learned advocate, Mr. Dave, for Opponent No.3.
Though served, none appeared for Opponent Nos. 1 and 2.
4. It was mainly argued by learned advocate, Mr. Bhatt, that,
though, the tribunal rightly took the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.2400/- per month, it did not grant any rise in the
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:35 IST 2026

C/FA/1674/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240394702009)
income towards loss of future prospects and thereby, committed
a grave error. It was, therefore, submitted that the tribunal
ought to have granted just compensation in view of the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of ‘National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others’ , reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680. He also found fault with the tribunal applying
multiplier of only 13, which, according to him, is not in
consonance with the judgment of the apex Court in the case of
‘ Pranay Sethi ’ (Supra).
4.1 Learned advocate, Mr. Bhatt, also argued to grant just
compensation under the conventional heads, as laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of ‘ United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur’, reported in (2021)
11 SCC 780.
4.2 By making the above submissions, it was prayed that this
appeal be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate, Mr. Dave, appearing on behalf
of Opponent No.3-insurance company supported the impugned
judgment and award of the tribunal and prayed to dismiss the
present appeal.
6. It is apt to notice that the tribunal adopted the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.2400/- per month, which appears
to be just and proper, as at the time of accident, the minimum
wages for a skilled worker was around Rs.2100/- per month.
Since, the deceased was doing the business of breeding goats
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:35 IST 2026

C/FA/1674/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240394702009)
and sheep and as this aspect has not been challenged by
Opponent No.-3 insurance company by filing appeal, the income
of Rs.2400/- per month taken by the tribunal is upheld.
6.1 The deceased left behind the widow and five children and
therefore, 1/3 amount deducted by the tribunal towards
pocket / personal expenses of the deceased appears to be a little
on higher side and instead, the tribunal ought to have deducted
1/4 amount towards the same, as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of ‘ Pranay Sethi ’ (Supra).
6.2 Further, what is missed out by the tribunal, while
calculating the compensation, is non-grant of any amount
towards prospective income or loss of future income. The
tribunal believed that the deceased was aged about 40 years,
but, as the deceased had no permanent source of income or job,
it would be just and proper, if, 25% amount is added towards
loss of prospective or future income. Further, considering the
fact that the deceased was aged about 40 years, the tribunal
ought to have applied the multiplier of 15, instead of 13.
Further, the widow and the children, who are total six in
numbers, shall also be individually entitled to compensation
towards loss of spouse consortium and the parental consortium,
respectively.
6.3 Here, it would be apt to note that the Apex Court in
Paragraph-61(viii) in the case of ‘ Pranay Sethi ’ (Supra), while
setting the reasonable figure of compensation under the
conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium,
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:35 IST 2026

C/FA/1674/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240394702009)
funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively and directed to enhance the amounts under the
conventional heads at the rate of 10% every three years. The
aforesaid judgment was delivered by the Apex Court on
31.10.2017 and as of now, nine years have passed and therefore,
cumulative rise of the compensation under the conventional
heads would also required to be granted.
6.4 In view of the above discussion, the recalculated
compensation would be as under;
Monthly Income: Rs.2400/-
Prospective Income: + Rs.600/-
Rs.3000/-
1/4 Deduction: - Rs.750/-
Net Monthly Income: Rs.2250/-
Annual Loss of Dependency X 12
Rs.27,000/-
Multiplier: X 15
Total Loss of Dependency: Rs.4,05,000 /-
Loss of Consortium (6 persons): Rs.53240/-
X 6
Rs.3,19,440 /-
Loss of Estate @ Rs.19,965/-each
& Funeral Expenses Rs.39,930 /-
Total Compensation: Rs.7,64,370/ -
6.5 The tribunal has awarded 7.5% interest per annum from
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:35 IST 2026

C/FA/1674/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240394702009)
the date of the filing of the claim petition till realization, which is
just and proper and thus, the said rate is maintained.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is partly allowed
and the impugned judgment and award dated 06.03.2007,
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Vadodara (in brief, ‘Tribunal’), in MACP No. 1209 of 2001 is
modified and the claimants shall be entitled to get total
additional compensation of Rs.4,89,770/- along with 7.5%
interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim
petition till realization as well as costs. The additional amount of
compensation shall be deposited by the insurance company
before the concerned tribunal within the period of eight weeks ,
from today. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal
shall disburse the entire amount to the original claimants
through NEFT / RTGS, if required, by passing the fresh order for
disbursement. R&P, if any, be sent back to the concerned
tribunal, forthwith. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:35 IST 2026