GOHEL ARJUNSINH @ ARJUNBHAI PRABHATSINH vs NARAYANSING PUNAMSING RAJPUT

C/FA/3152/2014 (GJHC240410392014) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3152 of 2014
==========================================================
GOHEL ARJUNSINH @ ARJUNBHAI PRABHATSINH & ANR.
Versus
NARAYANSING PUNAMSING RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 03/09/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The instant First Appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anand, in MACP
No.722 of 2011 and allied matters, whereby the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions.
2. The factual aspect emerging from the impugned
judgment and award is that, on 31.08.2011, for the purpose of
bringing a Ganpati statue to their village, the deceased and
other persons from their village had gone to Vadodara to
purchase the same, after hiring Tata Max bearing registration
No.GJ-23-V-1768. At about 11:30 p.m., near Ravandas Petrol
Pump on the Vadodara-Anand Highway, the driver of the truck
bearing registration No.GJ-06-XX-5599, driving at an
excessive speed, in a rash and negligent manner and on the
wrong side of the road, endangered human life and dashed
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:45:44 IST 2026

C/FA/3152/2014 (GJHC240410392014) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
against the Tata Max, thereby causing a road accident. The
persons travelling in the Tata Max sustained injuries and,
during treatment at SSG Hospital, Vadodara, deceased
Jayeshbhai was declared dead.
2.1 Thereafter, the parents of deceased Jayeshbhai
Arjunsinh Gohel filed a claim petition before the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anand (for short, “the
Tribunal”), under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
registered as MACP No.722 of 2011, claiming compensation
of Rs.10 lakhs. In support of their claim, the parents of the
deceased pleaded that Jayesh was aged about 23 years, was
hale and hearty, and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by
serving as an RSPH Associate with a Chartered Accountant at
Ahmedabad, and was thereby contributing towards the
maintenance of his family. However, due to the untimely
demise of the deceased, the family was put to severe financial
hardship. Apart from the aforesaid claim, compensation was
also sought under various other heads.
2.2 The learned Tribunal framed the issues and
permitted the parties to lead their evidence. Upon considering
the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed
the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,42,500/-
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the
application till realization. The learned Tribunal further
directed opponent Nos.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the
said amount to the claimants.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:45:44 IST 2026

C/FA/3152/2014 (GJHC240410392014) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
2.3 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and
award, the appellants–original claimants have preferred the
present First Appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement
of the compensation.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Disha Nanavaty for the
appellants – original claimants and learned advocate
Ms.Masumi Nanavaty for respondent No.3 – Insurance
Company.
4.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, it appears that the learned Tribunal has taken a
conservative view in assessing the income of the deceased at
Rs.1,250/- per month and has granted 50% towards future
prospects while calculating the compensation. The
compensation under certain other heads has also been
incorrectly assessed.
5.  I find sufficient reason in the submission canvassed
by learned advocate Ms. Disha Nanavaty that, in the absence
of any documentary evidence regarding the income of the
deceased, the learned MACT ought to have taken into
consideration the rate of minimum wages applicable to a
skilled labourer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.,
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871 , has held that, in the absence of any
evidence establishing the income of the deceased, the
minimum wages prevailing in the State of Gujarat for a skilled
worker are required to be taken into consideration for
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:45:44 IST 2026

C/FA/3152/2014 (GJHC240410392014) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
determining the income of the deceased at the time of the
accident.
6. In the present case, the accident occurred on 31st
August, 2011. The minimum wages prevailing in the State of
Gujarat for the period from 1st April, 2011 to 30th September,
2011, including the amount of D.A., were Rs.4,660/- per
month. Accordingly, the said amount is taken as the base
income of the deceased, as the claimants have not led any
evidence to establish the income of the deceased at the time
of the accident.
In the absence of any source of permanent income,
40% is required to be added towards future prospects, as the
deceased was 23 years of age at the time of the accident. The
deceased was a bachelor.
In the absence of any evidence indicating a large
family, and considering that the claimants are the parents of
the deceased, one-half of the income, including future
prospects, is required to be deducted towards the personal
and living expenses of the deceased.
The age of the deceased at the time of the accident
was 23 years. As per the settled proposition of law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , a multiplier
of 18 is applicable, having regard to the age of the deceased
at the time of the accident. Similarly, the compensation under
the non-pecuniary heads is required to be awarded in
accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:45:44 IST 2026

C/FA/3152/2014 (GJHC240410392014) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , as well as United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur,
(2021) 11 SCC 780 . Accordingly, just, fair and adequate
compensation is required to be awarded to the claimants.
7.  In light of the aforesaid discussion, the appellants–
original claimants are entitled to the following amount of
compensation:
Under the Head of Compensation
of Rs.
Future loss of income
Monthly income = Rs. 4,660/-
7,04,592/-
Prospective income
(Rs.4660 + 40%)= Rs. 6,524/-
Deduction 1/2
(Rs.6524 x 1/2 ) = Rs. 3,262/-
Total Income
[Rs.6524–Rs.3262]= Rs. 3,262/-
(Rs.3262 x 12 x 18) = Rs. 7,04,592/-
Loss of consortium
(Rs.48,400 x 2 = Rs.96,800/-)
96,800/-
Loss of estate 18,150/-
Funeral expenses 18,150/-
Grand Total 8,37,692/-
Less awarded amount of compensation
by Tribunal
2,42,500/-
Enhanced amount
(Rs.8,37,692– Rs.2,42,500)
5,95,192/-
Interest @9%
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:45:44 IST 2026

C/FA/3152/2014 (GJHC240410392014) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
8. The claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of
compensation of Rs. 5,95,192/- @ 9% per annum from the date
of claim petition till realization from Insurance Company.
9. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation with accrued
interest within a period of 12 weeks from today.
10. Upon deposition of the entire amount, the learned
Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the
FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon,
if any, to the claimants in equal proportion by Account Payee
Cheque/NEFT/RTGS, after proper verification and after
following due procedure.
11 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall
deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with
rules/law.
12. Resultantly, the present First Appeal is allowed to
the aforesaid extent. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid
extent. Record and proceedings, if any, received, be sent back
to the concerned Court/Tribunal.
13. Connected Civil Application, if any, does not
survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 19:45:44 IST 2026