SUBODHNABEN MANUBHAI VANKAR vs PARMAR SHAILENDRA BHAGWANSINH
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1562/2015 (GJHC240422662015) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1562 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
=====================================================
SUBODHNABEN MANUBHAI VANKAR & ANR.
Versus
PARMAR SHAILENDRA BHAGWANSINH & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS. MASUMI V. NANAVATI for MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for
the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed
in MACP No.1045 of 2011 dated 25.03.2015 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar,
the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of
the amount of compensation, whereby the learned Claims
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 12:40:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1562/2015 (GJHC240422662015) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
Tribunal granted the compensation of Rs.5,29,000 at the rate of
9% from the date of the petition till realization and proportionate
costs jointly and severally against opponent Nos.1 to 3,
exonerating the opponent Nos.4 to 6.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The short facts of the case are that, the deceased –
Manubhai Vankar was travelling in a rickshaw No.GJ-9-X-6553
driven by opponent No.4 in capacity of passenger from Sai
Mandir to Himmatnagar on 12.12.2011. However, when the
rickshaw reached near Virpur village, another rickshaw bearing
registration No.GJ-9-X-5553 driven by opponent No.1 rashly and
negligently, came from the opposite side and dashed into the
rickshaw in which deceased was sitting. Deceased succumbed to
the injuries and died on the spot.
3.1 The FIR of the incident was registered with
Himmatnagar Rural Police station vide C.R. I - 68 of 2011
against the driver - opponent No.1. It is in this background, the
claimants, being widow and son of the deceased, approached the
learned Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) inter alia , on
the averments that the deceased was 35 years old and was doing
a masonry work. His earning was Rs.10,000/- per month and
through this earning, he was maintaining the family. Claiming
the deceased as a sole bread-winner, claimants have preferred a
claim petition to get the compensation of Rs.15 lakhs with
interest and costs.
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 12:40:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1562/2015 (GJHC240422662015) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
3.2 Except opponent No.3, none come forward to contest
the claim petition and as usual, defense of denying the claim
petition has been raised. Learned Claims Tribunal framed the
issues, permitted parties to lead the evidence and in ultimate
conclusion, passed the aforesaid award.
3.3 Claimants, being aggrieved, filed the appeal under
Section 173 of the ‘MV Act’.
4. The solitary argument canvassed by learned advocate
Mr. R.K.Mansuri appearing for the claimants that the learned
Claims Tribunal has taken the income on the lower side to
calculate the future loss of income. Moreover, no compensation
for the loss of future prospect has been granted, and
compensation for the other non-pecuniary heads are not in
accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
accordance with judgment of Sarla Verma v/s. DTC [[(2009) 6
SCC 121] , approved by the Constitution Bench in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s. Pranay Sethi [2017
(16) SCC 680] as well as judgment in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram & Ors. [2018 (18) SCC 130] . Therefore, it is submitted to
re-work out and grant compensation.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Palak H. Thakkar appearing for
the United India Insurance Company Limited supports the
impugned judgment and award and submits that the learned
Claims Tribunal has passed the right order and does not require
any interference.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 12:40:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1562/2015 (GJHC240422662015) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
6. Learned advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavati appearing for
the HDFC IRGO General Insurance Company Limited submits
that the learned Claims Tribunal has exonerated the opponent
Nos.4 and 5 and that order requires to be maintained as
claimants or other insurance company is not challenging the
issue of negligence.
7. Having considered the rival submissions of the
learned advocates for both the side, I am constrained to observe
that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased on the lower side. It is true that the claimants have not
led any concrete evidence to prove the income, but
simultaneously, if we take the words of the claimants that the
deceased was doing a masonry work, the minimum wage would
come almost to Rs.5,000/- for a skilled worker, and looking to
that facts, the assessment of income to Rs.5,000/- would be just
and fair. There is no compensation for the loss of future
prospects is assessed. Deceased was 45 years old. He had no
source of permanent income. The grant of compensation for loss
of future prospects is an integral component for granting just
and fair compensation.
8. Recently, the Supreme Court in case of
V.Pathmavathi Versus Bharthi Axa General Insurance
Co.Ltd. , reported in 2026 (2) SCR 436 , observed that, the
concept of future prospects is integral component of “just
compensation” and is not confined only to those in permanent
government employment.
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 12:40:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1562/2015 (GJHC240422662015) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
9. In view of above and considering the settled dictum,
25% of the income of the deceased should be taken up for grant
of loss of future prospects. Number of dependent being 2 led the
rd
Court to deduct 1/3 of the total income, including future
prospects towards personal and pocket expenses. The age of 45
would attract the multiplier of 14 and rest of the non-pecuniary
heads are to be granted as per the judgment of Pranay
Sethi(Supra) as well as Magma(Supra) .
10. To be noticed that the development in the law in
regards to grant of loss of consortium, considering the number of
claimant, each one would be entitled to get the compensation for
the loss of consortium. For the claimant No.1, it would be a loss
of spousal consortium and for claimant No.2, it would be a loss
of parental consortium. Thus, the entire amount of
compensation can be worked out as under:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.) awarded
Amount (Rs.)
re-worked by this
by learned Tribunal
Court
Future
Rs.4,500/- x 1/3rd
Rs.5,000/- + 25%
dependency
(2 dependent)
prospective income
Loss
= Rs.1,500/-.
(Rs.1250/-) = Rs.6250
x 1/3rd
Rs.4,500/- - 1,500/- =
(2 dependent)
Rs.3,000/- p.m.
= Rs.4,167/-.
Rs.3,000/- x 12 =
Rs.4,167/- x 12 =
Rs.36,000/- x 14
Rs.50,004/- x 14
multiplier =
multiplier =
Rs.5,04,000/-
Rs.7,00,056/-
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 12:40:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1562/2015 (GJHC240422662015) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
Loss of
Rs. 25,000/- Rs.96,400/- +
consortium +
Rs.18,150/- +
Funeral
Rs.18,150/-
expenses +
Loss of estate
Total… 5,29,000/- 8,32,756/-
Less: amount
5,29,000/-
which is
already
awarded by
learned
Tribunal.
Additional
3,03,756/-
amount
which is
awarded
11. Therefore, I hold that the claimant/s are entitled to
get the total amount of additional compensation of
Rs. 3,03,756/- (Rs. 8,32,756/-, compensation worked out minus
(-) Rs.5,29,000/-, compensation already awarded) with 9% p.a.
interest, as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, from the
date of filing the claim petition till its realization, which would
meet the ends of justice.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 12:40:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1562/2015 (GJHC240422662015) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
13. The appeal is allowed .
14. The Insurance Company – Opponent No.3 - United
India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of Rs. 3,03,756/- with 9% p.a. interest from
the date of claim petition till its realization before the concerned
Tribunal, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
15. Upon deposit of amount, the Tribunal concerned
shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR
and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any,
to the claimant/s, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS,
after proper verification and after following due procedure.
16. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct
the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
17. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Sat Sep 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 05 12:40:39 IST 2026