PAMUBEN VISHNUBHAI VEGAD vs MEVARAM LAXMANRAM (DISMISSED)
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1130/2016 (GJHC240424662016) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PAMUBEN VISHNUBHAI VEGAD & ORS.
Versus
MEVARAM LAXMANRAM (DISMISSED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR MITESH L RANGRAS(3324) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 27/08/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned
judgment and award dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.230 of 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal
had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.6,67,600/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization.
2. The succinct facts which led to the filing of the captioned
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:36:05 IST 2026
C/FA/1130/2016 (GJHC240424662016) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
appeal are that on 24.02.2008, the deceased- Vishnubhai Vegad
was driving his Tata Tempo bearing registration No.GJ-4-X-5083
from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar. The deceased was driving the
said Tempo at a moderate speed. When he reached at the place
of accident, opponent No.1 had parked his Trailer bearing
registration No.GJ-16-X-6947 on highway road without any
parking lights, reflectors, indicators or radium patti during the
night. Opponent No.1 was obstructing the Highway traffic in
violation of traffic rules, causing the deceased to collide with the
said Trailer from behind. As a result of the said accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and thereafter succumbed
to the same.
2.1. Having been served with the notice of the claim petition,
the opponent Nos.3 & 5- Insurance Companies appeared and
filed their Written Statements at Exhibits-50 & 18 respectively,
thereby denying the averments made in the claim petition and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The original opponent
Nos.1, 2 & 4 did not file any written statement.
2.2. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, oral as well
as documentary evidence on record and the submissions
canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the learned
Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.6,67,600/- as compensation
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till its realization.
2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the appellants herein preferred the
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:36:05 IST 2026
C/FA/1130/2016 (GJHC240424662016) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
captioned appeal on the ground of quantum.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4. Mr. Harsh Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants, vehemently
submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased-
Vishnubhai Vegad was engaged in driving work and he was
holding a valid driving licence to drive a heavy vehicles. The
driving licence has been proved on record at Exhibit-38. It is
submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was
getting a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-, and apart from the
salary, he was also getting a sum of Rs.100/- per day as a daily
allowance, therefore, he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month.
However, the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.2,800/- per month, which is at a lower side. It is
submitted that the income of the deceased ought to have been
assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month. In support of his contention,
he placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Minu Rout & Anr. Vs. Satya
Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. , reported in 2013 (10) SCC 695 .
4.1. Learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that
at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 30
years, therefore, 40% of the monthly income ought to have been
added on account of future prospects of the deceased. In support
of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , reported in
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:36:05 IST 2026
C/FA/1130/2016 (GJHC240424662016) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
(2017) 16 SCC 680 .
4.2. Learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants-
herein vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal had
awarded a meagre amount under the conventional heads of
compensation. In support of his contention, he placed reliance
upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi ( supra ) and Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. ,
reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 . Therefore, he prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
5. Per Contra, Mr. Mitesh L. Rangras, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3- Insurance Company
submitted that the income of the deceased was not proved on
record by leading the cogent evidence of income. Therefore, in
absence of cogent evidence of income, the learned Tribunal
ought to have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the
time of the accident. The accident in question took place on
24.02.2008. At the time of the accident, the minimum wages for
a skilled worker was Rs.2,800/- per month. Therefore, he argued
that the income of the deceased may be assessed at Rs.2,800/-
per month.
5.1. Learned advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company
further submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded just
compensation under all the heads of compensation. Therefore,
the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:36:05 IST 2026
C/FA/1130/2016 (GJHC240424662016) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
6. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent No.5- Insurance Company
submitted that respondent No.5 has already been exonerated
from its liability to satisfy the award, and as such, there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment and award in exonerating
the respondent No.5- Insurance Company. Therefore, the
captioned appeal qua respondent No.5 is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the
record, it is to be noted that the appellants have challenged the
impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
8. So far as quantum is concerned, it is the case of the
claimants/appellants that at the time of the accident, the
deceased- Vishnubhai Vegad was working as a driver. It has
been pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a
salary, and apart from the salary, he was also receiving a daily
allowance of Rs.100/-. Therefore, the salary of the deceased was
pleaded at Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant/appellant No.1
filed her affidavit along with the lines of pleadings. She was also
cross-examined by learned advocate for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company, wherein the income of the deceased was
challenged, however, she denied the said suggestion. It is not in
dispute that at the time of the accident, the deceased was driving
the Tata Tempo bearing registration No.GJ-4-X-5083. The
driving licence of the deceased has been proved at Exhibit-38.
The perusal of the driving licence would show that the said
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:36:05 IST 2026
C/FA/1130/2016 (GJHC240424662016) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
driving licence was valid for driving the vehicles of
MV-1/HGV/HPV categories. In the case of Minu Rout ( supra ),
the Hon’ble Apex Court assessed the income of the driver at
Rs.6,000/- per month in absence of any cogent evidence of
income. Thus, having regard to the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Minu Rout ( supra ) and in light
of oral evidence, the income of the deceased is reassessed at
Rs.6,000/- per month.
9. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged about 30 years, therefore, 40% of the
monthly income is to be added on account of future prospects of
the deceased. Thus, after adding 40% to the monthly income on
account of future prospects, it would come to Rs.8,400/- i.e.,
(6,000 + 40% of 6,000). It is on record that at the time of
accident, the deceased was survived by six legal representatives,
therefore, 1/4 of the monthly income is to be deducted on
account of personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, after
deducting 1/4 on account of personal expenses, the monthly
income for calculating the loss of dependency would come to
Rs.6,300/- i.e., (8,400 – 1/4 of 8,400). Thus, applying the
multiplier of 17 as per the age of deceased, the loss of
dependency would come to Rs.12,85,200/- i.e. (6,300 x 12 x 17).
10. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
under the head of loss of estate and further a sum of Rs.5,000/-
is awarded under the head of funeral expenses. In view of the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi ( supra ), the compensation awarded under the aforesaid
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:36:05 IST 2026
C/FA/1130/2016 (GJHC240424662016) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
heads is enhanced to Rs.18,150/- each.
11. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of
compensation under the head of loss of consortium. It is evident
from the record that the deceased was survived by six legal
representatives i.e., his widow, three children and both the
parents. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram ( supra ), all the
claimants/appellants are entitled to get the compensation under
the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, a sum of
Rs.2,90,400/- i.e. (48,400 x 6) is awarded under the head of loss
of consortium.
12. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the following amount
of compensation under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 12,85,200/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium 2,90,400/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Total Compensation 16,11,900/-
Less: compensation already awarded by the
learned Tribunal
6,67,600/-
Additional amount of Compensation 9,44,300/-
13. The learned Tribunal had already awarded a sum of
Rs.6,67,600/-. Therefore, the claimants/appellants shall be
entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 9,44,300/- i.e.
(Rs.16,11,900/- - Rs.6,67,600/-). The learned Tribunal has
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:36:05 IST 2026
C/FA/1130/2016 (GJHC240424662016) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, therefore, the
claimants/appellants shall also be entitled for the interest at the
rate of 9% on the additional amount of compensation.
14. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal
stands allowed partly. The impugned judgment and award is
modified to the aforesaid extent accordingly.
15. The respondent No.3- Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with the
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till its realization, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
16. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal
shall disburse the amount to the original claimants, after
deducting the deficit court fees, if any, and after due verification.
Statutory amount, if any, lying/deposited with the Registry of
this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith.
17. R & P, if any, be sent to the concerned learned Tribunal
forthwith.
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:36:05 IST 2026