BAKULBHAI KANUBHAI BARIYA vs SHRI ATMIYA TRANSPORT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/4308/2025 (GJHC240589372025) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4308 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BAKULBHAI KANUBHAI BARIYA & ANR.
Versus
SHRI ATMIYA TRANSPORT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MITESH L RANGRAS(3324) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 25/08/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned
Special MACT (Aux.), Chhotaudepur at Bodeli in M.A.C.P. No.
84 of 2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed
the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,79,500/-
(Rupees Four Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred
Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from
the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
2. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the
captioned appeal are summarized as under :-
i. On 08.06.2017, Opponent No. 1 was driving his
truck bearing Registration No. GJ-06-AV-8768 in
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:41 IST 2026
C/FA/4308/2025 (GJHC240589372025) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
a rash and negligent manner and while so
driving, hit the rear side of the motorcycle
bearing Registration No. GJ-06-EK-1363, which
belonged to Opponent No. 4 and on which the
deceased- Bhautikkumar Bakulbhai Bariya was
travelling as a pillion rider. Due to the impact of
the collision, the deceased sustained serious
injuries and, ultimately, succumbed to the
injuries sustained in the said accident.
ii. The notices/summons of the Claim Petition were
duly served upon the opponents. The opponent
no.4 has chosen not to appear before the learned
Tribunal, however, the opponent no.2 appeared
through an advocate at Exh.16 and filed its reply
at Exh.17and the opponent nos.3 appeared and
filed Written Statement vide Exh.21, denying the
contents of the claim petition and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
iii. Having considered the pleadings of the parties,
the learned Tribunal framed the following issues
at Exh.22, for determination.
i. Whether the claimant prove that the
accident is occurred arising out of the
use of Motor Vehicle?
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:41 IST 2026
C/FA/4308/2025 (GJHC240589372025) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
ii. Whether the accident is occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the
opponent no.1, driver of the vehicle ?
iii.Whether the claimants proves that the
alleged death of deceased is resulted
due to bodily injuries sustained from the
aforesaid accident?
iv. What amount of compensation the
claimant is entitled ?
v. Whether the opponents are liable to pay
the amount of compensation?
vi. What order?
iv. Having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, and having
considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 4,79,500/- (Rupees Four
Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred
Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum, from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realization.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
impugned judgment and award, the claimants -
appellants herein preferred the present appeal.
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:41 IST 2026
C/FA/4308/2025 (GJHC240589372025) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the
claimants-appellants vehemently submitted that, at the time of
the accident, the deceased was aged about 6 years and,
therefore, was not earning any actual income. In the absence
of any actual income, the learned Tribunal assessed the
annual notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per
annum. It is submitted that, in the case of a minor, the learned
Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the minimum
wages prescribed for a skilled worker prevailing at the time of
the accident. In support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered
in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai
Rabari reported in 2025 INSC 1070.
5. It is submitted that 40% of the monthly income is to be
added on account of future prospects of the deceased. It is
submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre
amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium.
He, therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation. In
support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the
judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in
2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130.
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:41 IST 2026
C/FA/4308/2025 (GJHC240589372025) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
6. Per contra, Mr.Mitesh Rangras, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-Insurance Company
vehemently submitted at the time of the accident, the
deceased was aged about 6 years, and therefore, was not
having any actual income. It is submitted that the learned
Tribunal, after considering the material on record, had rightly
assessed the annual notional income of the deceased at
Rs.25,000/- per annum. It is submitted that the learned
Tribunal had awarded just compensation under all the heads
of compensation. He, therefore, submitted that there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment and award warranting
interference by this Court. Hence, the captioned appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
7. It is submitted that in the event of enhancement of the
compensation amount, the claimants-appellants may not be
awarded interest on the enhanced amount for a period of 756
days, as the captioned appeal came to be preferred after a
delay of 756 days. Therefore, the claimants-appellants would
not be entitled to claim interest on the additional amount of
compensation for the said period of 756 days.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the
record, it is to be noted that the claimants - appellants have
challenged the impugned judgment and order on the ground
of quantum.
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:41 IST 2026
C/FA/4308/2025 (GJHC240589372025) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it
is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the deceased
was aged about 6 years. Therefore, he was not having any ac-
tual income at the time of the accident. In the case of Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that,
in the case of a minor, the income may be assessed on the ba-
sis of the minimum wages notified by the respective State
Government prevailing at the relevant point of time. Thus,
considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), the monthly in-
come of the minor-deceased is required to be assessed on the
basis of the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the acci-
dent. The accident in question took place on 08.06.2017. At
the relevant point of time, the minimum wages prescribed by
the State Government for a skilled worker were Rs.8,388/- per
month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is re-
assessed at Rs.8,388/- per month. Further, 40% of the income
is required to be added towards future prospects. Thus, after
adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly notional in-
come would come to Rs.11,743/- (Rs.8,388/- + Rs.3,355/-). Ac-
cordingly, the annual income would come to Rs.1,40,916/-
(Rs.11,743/- × 12). Since the deceased was a minor at the
time of the accident, 1/2 of the income is required to be de-
ducted towards personal expenses. Thus, after deducting ½
towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency
would come to Rs.70,458/- (Rs.1,40,916/- – Rs.70,458/-). Ap-
plying the multiplier of 15 as per the age of the deceased, the
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:41 IST 2026
C/FA/4308/2025 (GJHC240589372025) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
future loss of income would come to Rs.10,56,870/-
(Rs.70,458/- × 15).
10. The learned Tribunal had awarded meagre amount of
compensation under the head of loss of estate and funeral
expenses. Therefore, having regard to the ratio laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
the compensation awarded under this head is enhanced to
Rs.18,150/- each.
11. It is evident from the record that deceased was survived
by both parents. Therefore, both the parents-claimants are
entitled to get the compensation under the head of
consortium. Accordingly, in view of the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(supra), a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- × 2) is awarded
under the head of loss of consortium.
12. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the
claimants shall be entitled for the following compensation:-
Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded in
rupees.
1 Loss of Dependency 10,56,870/-
2 Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
3 Loss of Estate 18,150/-
4 Loss of Consortium 96,800/-
Rs. 11,89,970/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION
Less : Compensation Rs.4,79,500/-
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:41 IST 2026
C/FA/4308/2025 (GJHC240589372025) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
awarded by impugned
Judgment and Award
Enhanced amount of
Rs. 7,10,470/-
compensation
13. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the claimants -
appellants shall be entitled for an additional compensation of
Rs.7,10,470/- (Rs.11,89,970 /- – Rs.4,79,500 /-). The learned
Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
14. I t has been argued by learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the Insurance Company that the captioned appeal
came to be filed after a delay of 756 days and, therefore, the
claimants-appellants ought not to be awarded interest for the
said period of delay. It appears from the record that the Civil
Application for Condonation of Delay came to be allowed vide
order dated 21.11.2025. The Coordinate Bench of this Court,
while condoning the delay, did not direct exclusion of the
interest for the delayed period. In view thereof, the contention
raised by the learned advocate appearing for the Insurance
Company is not sustainable and, therefore, deserves to be
rejected. Accordingly, the claimants-appellants shall also be
entitled to interest at the same rate on the enhanced amount
of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition
till its realization.
15. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:41 IST 2026
C/FA/4308/2025 (GJHC240589372025) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
stands allowed partly and judgment and award is modified to
that extent. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the additional compensation amount along with
interest, with the concerned learned Tribunal within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Upon depositing the said amount of compensation, learned
Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount of
compensation along with interest to the claimants – appellants
after deducting deficit Court fee and due verification.
16. If any amount is lying deposited in the captioned appeal
with the Registry of this court, the same may be transmitted
to the concerned learned Tribunal. Records & Proceedings, if
any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal. No
order as to costs.
17. Pending application, if any stands disposed of.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 19:08:41 IST 2026