SAVITABEN PRATAPSINH CHAUHAN vs SANJAY GANPATBHAI PARMAR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2630 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SAVITABEN PRATAPSINH CHAUHAN & ORS.
Versus
SANJAY GANPATBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 03/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants -
original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by
th
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and 4 Additional District
Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No. 222 of 2017 vide judgment
and award dated 23.03.2020 whereby, the learned Tribunal has
awarded amount of Rs.58,89,792/- with interest at the rate of 9%
p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petition till realization.
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
2. The brief facts of the appeal are as under:
2.1 The legal representative of the deceased - Pratapsinh
Sursinh Chauhan has filed a Claim Petition before the learned
Tribunal. As per the case of the claimants, on 12/04/2016, the
deceased as per the instruction of the opponent no.1 – owner
seated in the city ride vehicle no. GJ-6-X-3567 as a labourer and
at about 8:00 in the morning, while they were passing through
Ahmedabad-Vadodara express highway in Vehrakhadi sim, at
that time, the driver of the city ride vehicle lost control of the
vehicle. He was driving the city ride vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and thereafter, the tyre of the city ride vehicle
burst and because of that the driver lost control of the vehicle.
Consequently, the vehicle turtled and because of that the
deceased sustained injuries and subsequently, he succumbed to
his injuries. Hence, a Claim Petition was preferred by the legal
representative of the deceased.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi for the apellants.
He has submitted that the present appeal has been preferred
only on the ground of calculation of income, as the learned
Tribunal has calculated the income of the deceased by perusing
the income tax returns of the deceased for the Financial Years
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal
has taken the average of these three years’ income tax returns
and considered the income of the deceased as Rs.57,507/-. per
month.
3.1 In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr.Bhalodi
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Rashmirekha Tripathy Rekha Rajani Vs. Branch
Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance
Company Limited Dinesh Porwal Mukesh reported in 2026
JX(SC) 717 and submitted that as per the pronouncement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, so far as a salaried person is concerned,
his previous year’s income tax return is required to be taken into
consideration. The learned Tribunal has committed an error while
assessing the income by taking average of three years’ income
tax returns for the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-
16. He has further submitted that as per the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur reported in 2021 (11) SCC 780 ,
the loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate are
required to be given to all the claimants. He, therefore,
submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and
accordingly, the compensation requires to be enhanced.
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for the
insurance company, has vehemently opposed the present appeal
and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income after considering the average of the three years income
tax return and thus, no error has been committed by the learned
Tribunal. He has submitted that the present appeal is devoid of
merits and requires to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
6. Considered the rival submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, perused the impugned
judgment and award and record and proceedings of the learned
Tribunal.
7. The only short question before this Court is regarding the
income part of the deceased. It has come on record that the
deceased was working in Baroda Reliance Industries Ltd. as an
Operator, Grade 1 since 08/02/1984. Further, his salary slip has
been produced by witness Kamleshbhai Ravishankar Pandya vide
Exhibit 44, who is an employee of Baroda Reliance Industries Ltd.
and he has produced the salary slip of the deceased vide Exhibit
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
47. Further, to prove the income of the deceased, another
witness namely, Mr. Chandrakant Dhanjibhai Parmar has been
examined by claimants below at Exhibit 56 who is an Income Tax
Inspector. He has produced the income tax return filed by the
deceased for the financial year 2013-14 which has been
produced vide Exhibit 58, income tax return of financial year
2014-15 produced vide Exhibit 59 and income tax return of
financial year 2015-16 produced vide Exhibit 60. So for the
consideration of the income, the learned Tribunal has considered
the income of the deceased for the financial year 2013-14 as
Rs.6,25,301/- per annum, income for the financial year 2014-15
was assessed as Rs.6,79,042/- per annum and as per Exhibit 60,
income for the financial year 2015-16 was considered as
Rs.7,65,939/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has taken out the
average of these three financial years and assessed the income
of the deceased as Rs.6,90,094/-.
8. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to peruse the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that has been heavily
relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants in the
case of Rashmirekha Tripathy Rekha Rajani (supra)
whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph
nos. 18 and 19 as under:
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
“18. We find force in the submission put forth by Mr. JR Midha,
learned senior counsel. There must be a bifurcation made
between salaried individuals and self-employed individuals
when it comes to assessment of annual income. In our view,
for salaried individuals, only the ITR of the previous year will
be sufficient for showcasing the annual income from salary.
The reason for considering only the preceding year is that the
financial impact of promotions is significant and may be
reflected in the ITR for only that year. A situation may also
arise whereby the deceased/claimant might not have
completed a year in the promoted position before the
accident or might not have filed ITR for such period. In such
cases the Court concerned shall take reference to the
promotion letter and other corroboratory financial
statements.
19. When it comes to self-employed / individuals carrying out
their own business, in our view, the average of the income
specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three years is to be
taken as a reference point for assessment of annual income
from their business. There may also be a scenario where only
one or two ITRs have been filed. Given such scenarios and the
fluctuation of income in these professions, surrounding
circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. These
would include:
a) The nature of the business (including geographic
location, category etc.);
b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of death
on the business;
c) Potential growth of business (for instance certain
businesses are capital intensive at the outset and are
profitable at scale/in the future);
d) Negative income (certain businesses may require
losses in the initial years, which may not reflect the true
financial standing); and
e) Any other relevant factor relating to the business.”
9. So considering the above dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
Court, it has been held that when it comes to assessment of the
annual income for a salaried individual, only the ITR of the
previous year will be sufficient for showcasing the annual income
from the salary. Considering this, so far as the method of taking
average of the previous three years’ ITR by the learned Tribunal
is concerned, it is not the correct approach to assess the income,
but instead, taking into consideration the dictum of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as the accident took place on 12/04/2016 and the
income tax return of the financial year 2015-16 has been
produced at Exhibit 60 whereby the net income after deducting
the tax of the deceased was assessed as Rs.7,65,939/- per
annum should be considered. So it can be said to be Rs.63,828/-
per month. The learned Tribunal has rightly granted 15%
prospective income and deduction of the amount spent by the
deceased on himself has been rightly held as one third.
10. Considering the above, the income of the deceased has
been recalculated as Rs.63,828/- per month on which prospective
income, deduction of amount spent on himself and future loss
per annum would be recalculated and considering this, the future
loss granted by the learned Tribunal as Rs.58,19,792/- is to be
recalculated as Rs.64,59,420/- as per the income assessed by
this Court. So far as the other heads such as funeral expense,
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
loss of estate and loss of consortium are concerned, as there are
three claimants, the said amount is to be awarded accordingly
after considering the same.
11. As discussed above, the appellants are entitled to get
enhanced compensation computed as under:
Awarded by
Heads
Reassessed by
Tribunal
this Court
Actual Income 57507 63828
Prospective
15%(66133) 15%(73402)
income
Deduction of
amount spent
by the decd. on
1/3 (22044) 1/3 (24467)
himself
Future loss per
44039 x 12 48935 x 12
annum
Multiplier 11 11
Future loss 58,19,792 64,59,420
Funeral 15,000 19,965
Loss of estate 15,000 19,965
Loss of 1,59,720
40,000
Consortium (53,240 X 3)
Total
58,89,792 66,59,070
Compensation
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
(Less) Amount
of
compensation
awarded by the
- (-)58,89,792
Tribunal
Enhanced
- Rs.7,69,278/-
Amount
12. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal has awarded the
compensation of Rs.58,89,792/- and the claimants are entitled to
get enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of
Rs.7,69,278/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of filing Claim Petition till its realization.
13. Hence, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and award dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Motor
th
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and 4 Additional District Judge,
Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No. 222 of 2017 stands modified to the
aforesaid extent. The rest of the impugned judgment and award
remains unaltered. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced
amount of Rs.7,69,278/- along with the interest as above before
the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
14. Considering the fact that the accident took place in the
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026
C/FA/2630/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240601522020)
year 2016, after depositing the enhanced amount by the
insurance company, the total amount lying with the concerned
Tribunal is to be paid to the claimants along with the amount of
enhancement with accrued interest thereon, if any, by account
payee cheque/ NEFT/ RTGS after proper verification and
following due procedure.
15. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the
deficit court fees on the enhanced amount and thereafter,
disburse the amount accordingly.
16. The record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal.
17. Award to be drawn accordingly.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
ANUSRI
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:48:13 IST 2026