ILABEN WD/O GOPALBHAI KHIMJIBHAI BUDDHDEV vs BHURABHAI BHOJABHAI TARAKHALA-MER

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 985 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ILABEN WD/O GOPALBHAI KHIMJIBHAI BUDDHDEV
Versus
BHURABHAI BHOJABHAI TARAKHALA-MER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 24/06/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the
impugned judgment and award dated 06.10.2017 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gir-
Somnath at Veraval in M.A.C.P. No. 196 of 2007, whereby the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.85,750/- along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till
its realization, as compensation, after deducting 30% of the
total awarded compensation on account of the negligence of
the deceased.
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned
appeal, as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as
under:-
i. On 01.01.2007, Minor Hiren Gopalbhai (hereinafter
referred to as the “ deceased ”) was travelling
towards Veraval in a motorcycle driven by his
father – Gopalbhai. The said motorcycle was being
driven at very moderate speed and on the correct
side of the road. The deceased’s brother, viz.,
minor Hardik (claimant in M.A.C.P. No.195 of 2007)
was also travelling in the said motorcycle as pillion
rider. In the meantime, original opponent
No.1/respondent No.1 herein came by driving one
S.T. bus bearing registration No.GJ-18-V-4966 in a
very rash and negligent manner and at an
excessive speed, and dashed with the motorcycle
driven by the deceased’s father from behind,
thereby causing the vehicular accident. As a
result of the said vehicular accident, minor – Hiren
Gopalbhai and his father - Gopalbhai sustained
grievous injuries and they succumbed to the said
injuries, while the claimant’s other minor son, viz.,
Hardik suffered serious injuries in the said
accident.
ii. It is the case of the original claimant/appellant
herein before the learned Tribunal that at the time
of the vehicular accident, the deceased was a
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
minor aged about 9 years. Therefore, the original
claimant/appellant herein, who is the mother of
the deceased had preferred the Claim Petition
before the learned Tribunal against original
opponent No.1/respondent No.1 herein – driver of
S.T.bus and Original opponent No.2/respondent
No.2 herein - owner of S.T. bus, seeking
compensation on account of the death of her
minor son.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of
the Claim Petition, original opponents/respondents
herein filed their Written Statement at Exh.13,
thereby denying the averments made in the Claim
Petition, and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the
Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on
record and the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels for the respective parties, the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim
Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.85,750/- along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from
the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, original
claimant/appellant herein, who is the mother of
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
the deceased has challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground of negligence
as well as quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Hiren M Modi, learned counsel for the
appellant/original claimant vehemently submitted that the
deceased was a minor aged about 9 years at the time of the
vehicular accident. He contended that the learned Tribunal had
assessed the monthly income of the deceased at very lower
side. He contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have
assessed the monthly wages of the deceased in accordance
with the table of Minimum Wage Rates prescribed by the State
Government of Gujarat for the relevant period of time in which
the vehicular accident had occurred. He further submitted that
the learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of
compensation under the heads of Loss of estate and Funeral
expenses, and contended that no amount of compensation has
been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of Loss
of consortium. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
for the original claimant/appellant herein placed reliance upon
the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid
judgments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimant/appellant herein prayed for enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and contended
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
that the impugned judgment and award be modified
accordingly.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant herein further
submitted that at the time of the vehicular accident, the
deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle
driven by his father, as such, no negligence can be attributed
to the deceased, however, the learned Tribunal has
erroneously deducted 30% from the total awarded amount on
account of the negligence of the deceased. He contended that
the said deduction of 30% on account of negligence is not
sustainable and submitted that the findings returned by the
learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is required to be
set aside. He prayed that the impugned judgment and award
be modified accordingly.
6. Per contra, Mr. H S Munshaw, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.2 - Gujarat S.T. Corporation
contended that the learned Tribunal had awarded just
compensation under all the heads, as such, contended that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires no
reconsideration.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No.2 - Corporation further submitted that the learned Tribunal
has rightly considered the oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record and has rightly assessed the
issue of negligence and has rightly deducted 30% from the
total awarded amount on account of the negligence of the
deceased. He contended that the findings returned by the
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence requires no
reconsideration and contended that the same be upheld. He
contended that the captioned appeal preferred by the original
claimant/appellant is devoid of any merits and contended that
the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused the material
available on record, it is to be noted that the original
claimant/appellant herein has challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground of negligence as well as
quantum.
NEGLIGENCE
9. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, it is the
case of the original claimant/appellant herein that at the time
of the vehicular accident, the deceased was a pillion rider in
the motorcycle driven by his father, as such, contended that
the deduction of 30% of the total compensation on account of
negligence is erroneous. It is to be noted that issue of
negligence involved in the vehicular accident in question has
already been discussed in detail by this Court in First Appeal
No.983 of 2018, wherein this Court after considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence proved on record, rejected
the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of
negligence, and held the original opponent No.1/respondent
No.1 herein - driver of the S.T.bus solely negligent for causing
the vehicular accident in question. Even otherwise, the
reduction of 30% on account of negligence of the deceased
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
cannot sustain, as contributory negligence cannot be fastened
on the pillion rider. Reliance in this regard may be placed on
the Hon’ble Apex Court’s observations in SLP (C) NO.
22599/2024 titled as Yashwant Krishna Kumbar v.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd .,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while adjudicating an
appeal filed by the pillion rider on the ground that contributory
negligence of 50% was attributed by the Tribunal and High
Court, held as under:-
“16. In cases where contributory negligence is
sought to be attributed to a pillion rider in a
motor vehicle accident, the burden squarely lies
on the party alleging such negligence to
establish, by cogent material, that any act or
omission on the part of the pillion rider
contributed to the occurrence of the accident.
In the absence of such proof, no finding of
contributory negligence can be sustained
against a pillion rider.
17. This Court is therefore of the considered
view that the Tribunal committed a manifest
error in reducing the compensation by 50% on
the ground of alleged contributory negligence
of the claimant. The insurer, on whom the
burden squarely rested, led no evidence to
establish even remote negligence attributable
to the claimant. Consequently, the finding of
contributory negligence cannot be sustained
and is liable to be set aside, restoring the
claimant’s entitlement to the full measure of
compensation determined in accordance with
law.”
(emphasis added)
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
10. Thus, the learned Tribunal had committed a grave error
by deducting 30% of the compensation on account of
negligence. Accordingly, the findings returned by the learned
Tribunal on the issue of negligence is set aside and the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 on the issue of negligence is rejected.
QUANTUM
11. It is not in dispute that at the time of the vehicular
accident the deceased was a minor aged about 9 years. The
accident in question occurred on 01.01.2007. At the relevant
point of time, the minimum wages as notified by the State
Government of Gujarat was Rs.2,600/- per month. Thus, I
reassess the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,600/- per
month.
12. It is not in dispute that at the time of the vehicular
accident, the deceased was aged about 9 years, therefore, in
view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) reported in 2017
(16) SCC 680 , the notional monthly income of the deceased is
required to be enhanced by 40% on account of the future
prospects of the deceased. Therefore, after adding 40% of the
notional income to the monthly income of the deceased, the
monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.3,640/- (i.e,
Rs.2,600/- plus 40% of Rs.2,600/-).
13. It is evident from the records that the deceased was
survived by his mother, therefore, in view of the ratio of
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) , ½ of the monthly notional income of
the deceased is required to be deducted on account of the
personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, after deducting ½ of
the monthly income on account of the personal expenses of
the deceased, the monthly income for calculating the Future
loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,820/- (i.e., Rs.3,640/-
minus ½ of Rs.3,640/-).
14. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of
accident, the multiplier of “15” is required to be applied.
Therefore, after applying the multiplier of “15”, the original
claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for a sum of
Rs.3,27,600/- (i.e, Rs.1,820/- X 12 months X multiplier of “15”)
under the head of Future Loss of Dependency.
15. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
under the head of Loss of consortium. It is on record that the
deceased was survived by his mother. In view of the ratio of
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (supra), his mother is
entitled to receive compensation under the head of Loss of
consortium. Thus, a sum of Rs.48,400/- is awarded under the
head of Loss of Consortium.
16. The learned Tribunal had awarded meagre amounts of
compensation under the heads of Loss of estate and Funeral
expenses. The said amount of compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the ratio of the
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi ( supra), as such, the compensation awarded
under the head of Loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.18,150/-
and similarly, the compensation awarded under the head of
Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.18,150/-.
17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimant shall be entitled for the following amount of
compensation:-
Sr.
No.
Heads Amount in rupees.
1 Future Loss of
3,27,600/-
Dependency.
2 Loss of Consortium. (+) 48,400/-
3 Loss of Estate. (+) 18,150/-
4 Funeral Expenses. (+) 18,150/-
5 Total Compensation. 4,12,300/-
Less : Compensation
already awarded by the
(-) 85,750/-
6
learned Tribunal vide
its impugned judgment
and award.
7 Enhanced amount of
3,26,550/-
Compensation
18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for an additional
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,26,550. The learned Tribunal
has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. The said rate
of interest is maintained; accordingly, the original claimants
shall be entitled to 9% of interest per annum on the additional
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026

C/FA/985/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition till its realization.
19. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the impugned
judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent
and the captioned appeal stands partly allowed.
20. The Respondent No.2 - Corporation is directed to satisfy
the awarded amount, including additional amount of
compensation at the same rate of interest as awarded by the
learned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. Upon depositing the said amount,
the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
to the original claimants (deducting deficit Court fee, if any),
after due verification.
21. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the
Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned
Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any be
sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
22. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN..
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:49 IST 2026