NIKUNJBHAI BHIKHUBHAI RATHOD vs JAYANTIBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1167/2024 (GJHC240152432024) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1167 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NIKUNJBHAI BHIKHUBHAI RATHOD & ANR.
Versus
JAYANTIBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MITESH L RANGRAS(3324) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 27/08/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), & Addl. District Judge, at Bharuch in
M.A.C.P. No.536 of 2016, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly
allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.7,62,400/-, along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the
Claim Petition till its realization, as compensation.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal,
as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:48:33 IST 2026
C/FA/1167/2024 (GJHC240152432024) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
i. On 27.09.2016, Ms. Tinaben Nikunjbhai Rathod
(hereinafter referred to as the “ deceased ”) was
travelling in a Honda City car bearing registration No.GJ-
05-CF-1222. The said car was being driven by original
opponent No.4/respondent No.4 herein. When they
reached near the place of the accident, one Hyundai
Verna Car bearing registration No.GJ-05-CJ-2552, came in
a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed ,
and dashed with the car in which the deceased was
travelling, thereby causing the vehicular accident. As a
result of the said vehicular accident, the deceased
sustained serious injuries and she succumbed to the said
injuries.
ii. It is the case of the original claimants/appellants herein
before the learned Tribunal that at the time of the
vehicular accident, the deceased was aged about 24
years and she was earning a substantial income, by
working as a vegetable vendor. Therefore, the original
claimants/appellants herein preferred the Claim Petition
before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation on
account of the death of the deceased.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the
Claim Petition, original opponent No.3/respondent No.3 –
Insurance Company filed its Written Statement, thereby
denying the averments made in the Claim Petition, and in
brief, prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:48:33 IST 2026
C/FA/1167/2024 (GJHC240152432024) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
3. 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.7,62,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its
realization, as compensation.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and award, the original claimants/appellants herein have challenged the
impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that at the time of
the vehicular accident, the deceased was working as a vegetable
vendor, thereby earning substantial income, however, the income of the
deceased was not proved on record by leading any cogent evidence, as
such, the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is lesser than the minimum
wages prevalent at the time of the vehicular accident. He further
submitted that in the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the
income, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the
deceased in accordance with the minimum wages prevalent at the time
of the vehicular accident. He further submitted that the deceased was
married at the time of the vehicular accident, however, the learned
Tribunal has erroneously deducted ½ instead of 1/3rd on account of
the personal expenses of the deceased. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the original claimants have placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:48:33 IST 2026
C/FA/1167/2024 (GJHC240152432024) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in
2009 AIR (SC) 3104 . He further submitted that the learned Tribunal
had awarded meagre amounts of compensation under the conventional
heads. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the original
claimants have 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. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Having placed
reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the original claimants/appellants has prayed for enhancement
of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and contended
that the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 –
Insurance Company vehemently argued that the income of the
deceased at the time of the vehicular accident was not proved on
record by leading any cogent evidence, as such, the learned Tribunal
has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per
month. He further argued that the learned Tribunal had awarded just
compensation under all the heads of compensation, as such,
contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and
award and argued that the captioned appeal being devoid of any
merits, is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it
is to be noted that the original claimants/appellants herein have
challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of
quantum.
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:48:33 IST 2026
C/FA/1167/2024 (GJHC240152432024) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
QUANTUM
9. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is to be noted that the
deceased was working as a vegetable vendor. Perusal of the record
transpires that the original claimants/appellants herein have not proved
the income of the deceased by leading any cogent evidence. In the
absence of any cogent evidence to prove the income, the learned
Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the
time of the vehicular accident. The accident in question took place on
27.09.2016. At the relevant point of time, the minimum wages as
notified by the State Government of Gujarat for such a skilled worker
was Rs.8,133/- per month. Thus, I reassess the income of the deceased
at the time of vehicular accident at Rs.8,133/- per month.
10. It emerges from the records that the deceased was aged about
24 years at the time of the vehicular accident, therefore, considering
the age of the deceased at the time of the vehicular accident, the
notional monthly income of the deceased is required to be enhanced by
40% on account of her future prospects, in view of the ratio laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Pranay Sethi (supra).
Thus, after adding 40% of the notional income to the monthly income
of the deceased, the income of the deceased would come to the tune of
Rs.11,386/- (i.e, Rs.8,133/- plus 40% of Rs.8,133/-).
11. It emerges from the record that the deceased was married,
therefore, in view of the ratio of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of the monthly
notional income of the deceased is required to be deducted on account
of the personal expenses of the deceased. However, the learned
Tribunal has erroneously deducted ½ of the notional income on
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:48:33 IST 2026
C/FA/1167/2024 (GJHC240152432024) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
account of the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, after
deducting 1/3rd 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.7,590/- (i.e., Rs.11,386/-
minus 1/3rd of Rs.11,386/-).
12. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the
multiplier of “18” is required to be applied. Therefore, after applying the
multiplier of “18”, the original claimants/appellants herein shall be
entitled for a sum of Rs.16,39,440/- (i.e, Rs.7,590/- X 12 months X
multiplier of “18”) under the head of Future Loss of Dependency.
13. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- under
the head of Loss of consortium. The instant appeal is preferred by the
father and husband of the deceased. Thus, 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), only the husband is eligible
for compensation under the head of Loss of consortium. Thus, a sum of
Rs.48,400/- (i.e., Rs.48,400/- X 1) is awarded under the head of Loss of
Consortium.
14. 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 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
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:48:33 IST 2026
C/FA/1167/2024 (GJHC240152432024) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
Rs.18,150/- and similarly, the compensation awarded under the head of
Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.18,150/-.
15. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the
head of Transportation charges. The compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal under the said head is not under challenge. As such,
the same is not required to be interfered with and is accordingly
maintained.
16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimants
shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sr.
No.
Heads Amount in rupees.
1 Future Loss of
16,39,440/-
Dependency.
2 Loss of Consortium. (+) 48,400/-
3 Loss of Estate. (+) 18,150/-
4 Funeral Expenses. (+) 18,150/-
5 Transportation charges. (+) 5,000/-
6 Total Compensation 17,29,140/-
7 Less : Compensation
already awarded by the
/-
(-) 7,62,400
learned Tribunal.
8 Enhanced amount of
9,66,740/-
compensation.
17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimants
shall be entitled for an additional compensation to the tune of
Rs.9,66,740/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:48:33 IST 2026
C/FA/1167/2024 (GJHC240152432024) JUDGMENT DATED: 27/08/2026
realization. The said rate of interest is maintained; accordingly, the
original claimants shall be entitled to 9% of interest per annum on the
additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition till its realization.
18. Accordingly, all the respondents are held jointly and severally
liable 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 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.
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. 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.
21. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:48:33 IST 2026