RAJUBHAI GOVINDBHAI VASAVA (LHS OF DECD. ARUNBHAI RAJUBHAI VASAVA) vs PIYUSHBHAI VITHHALBHAI PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/4473/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4473 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJUBHAI GOVINDBHAI VASAVA (LHS OF DECD. ARUNBHAI
RAJUBHAI VASAVA) & ORS.
Versus
PIYUSHBHAI VITHHALBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(7.557.57) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MASUMI V NANAVATY(7.5321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
YASHKUMAR J TRIVEDI(7.5624) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 02/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment
and award dated 30.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi.-7), Vadodara at Karjan in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.130 of 2020 (Old No.70 of 2018), whereby the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.8,29,000/- as a compensation along with
the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 18:04:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4473/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
of the claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to the filing the captioned appeal
are that on 28.12.2017, at about 06:30 p.m., Vishnubhai
Maheshbhai Vasava was driving the motorcycle bearing
registration No.GJ-06-JS-4403 and Arunbhai Rajubhai Vasava
was travelling as a pillion rider on the said motorcycle. When
they reached at the place of accident, in the meantime, the
opponent No.1 came by driving the Tractor bearing registration
No.GJ-06-LB-8006 at excessive speed in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. As a
result of the accident, Vishnubhai Maheshbhai Vasava and
Arunbhai Rajubhai Vasava sustained grievous injuries and
subsequently succumbed to the same.
2.1. Having been served with the notice of the claim petition,
the opponent No.3-Insurance Company appeared and filed
written statement, thereby denying the contents of the claim
petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
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.8,29,000/- as a
compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the appellants herein preferred the
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 18:04:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4473/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
captioned appeal on the ground of quantum.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the original claimants/appellants herein, vehemently
submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was minor
and he was gainfully engaged in agricultural work. He further
submitted that the income of the deceased was not proved on
record by leading any cogent evidence. Therefore, the learned
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-
per month which is lesser than the minimum wages prevalent at
the time of accident. He further submitted that in absence of any
cogent evidence of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident.
4.1. Learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants
herein vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal had
awarded a meagre amount of compensation under the
conventional heads of compensation. In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited
Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. , reported in 2018 (18)
SCC 130 . Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
5. Per contra , Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 18:04:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4473/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company,
vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased
was minor and engaged in agricultural work. He further
submitted that in the claim petition as well as in the affidavit,
they stated that at the time of accident, the income of the
deceased was of Rs.5,000/- per month. The same was relied
upon by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal
has not committed any error in considering the income of the
deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. He further submitted that
the learned Tribunal has awarded the just compensation under
all the heads of compensation. Therefore, there is no infirmity in
the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned
Tribunal. Hence, the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. In rebuttal, Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the original claimants/appellants,
submitted that the income of the deceased was pleaded on lower
side but it is the duty of the Tribunal as well as of the Court to
award the just compensation. He placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh and Ors. Versus Rajbir Singh and Ors. , reported in
(2013) 9 SCC 54 . He further submitted that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Versus
Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and Anr. , reported in 2025 (0)
AIJEL-SC 75833 , directed all the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunals to consider the minimum wages for calculating the
compensation. He further submitted that in view of the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments,
the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 18:04:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4473/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
wages prevalent at the time of accident.
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 the quantum is concerned, it is the case of the
claimants that the deceased- Arunbhai Rajubhai Vasava was
engaged in an agricultural work and thereby earning a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal after considering
the pleadings and affidavit, assessed the income of the deceased
at Rs.5,000/- per month. It is now well settled that while
determining the compensation, the Tribunal and Court are not
strictly governed by the pleadings of the party, but the
Tribunal/Court has to award the just compensation. In the case
of Rajesh and Ors. ( supra ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
paragraph 16, observed as under:-
“16. In a report on accident, there is no
question of any reference to any claim for
damages, different heads of damages or such
other details. It is the duty of the Tribunal to
build on that report and award just, equitable,
fair and reasonable compensation with
reference to the settled principles on
assessment of damages. Thus, on that ground
also we hold that the Tribunal/court has a
duty, irrespective of the claims made in the
application, if any, to properly award a just,
equitable, fair and reasonable compensation,
if necessary, ignoring the claim made in the
application for compensation.”
9. Further, in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel ( supra ), the
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 18:04:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4473/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph Nos.15 and 16, observed
as under:-
“15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again
clarified here that when a Tribunal or the
High Court in appeal, is concerned with the
case involving a child having suffered injury
or having passed away, the calculation of
loss of income necessarily has to be made on
the matric of minimum wages payable to a
skilled worker in the respective State at the
relevant point of time. It is our hope that this
restatement helps avoiding such errors and
thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's
interference, applying well-established
principles of law.
16. We may also observe that, in general,
i.e., accidents involving adults, we are often
confronted with situations where the
Minimum Wage Data is not readily available
and every so often, the question that has
been made up to this Court hinges only on
the calculation of income. In that view of the
matter and in the hope of reducing the
claimants need to file appeals to this Court
or even the High Court, we deem it
appropriate to direct that in cases where the
claimant has failed to furnish appropriate
details of income or adequate proof thereof, it
shall be the responsibility and obligation of
the contesting party, more particularly the
insurance company to furnish before the
Tribunal the applicable minimum wage as
duly issued by the concerned government.”
10. Thus, in view of settled legal position, even though the
income of the deceased was pleaded lesser than the minimum
wages, it is the duty of the Tribunal/Court to consider the
income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages
prevalent at the time of accident.
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 18:04:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4473/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
11. Thus, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the the case of Rajesh and Ors. ( supra ) and
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel ( supra ), though the claimants have
pleaded the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, yet
considering the minimum wages prevalent at the time of
accident, the income of the deceased is to be assessed on the
basis of minimum wages. The accident in question took place on
28.12.2017. At the relevant point of time, the minimum wages
for the skilled worker was of Rs.8,388/- per month. Therefore,
the income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.8,388/- per
month.
12. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged about 17 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 notional monthly
income on account of future prospects, it would come to
Rs.11,743/- i.e. (8,388 + 40% of 8,388). It is on record that at
the time of accident, the deceased was bachelor, therefore, 1/2
of the monthly income is deducted on account of personal
expenses of the deceased. Thus, after deducting 1/2 on account
of personal expenses, the monthly income for calculating the
loss of dependency would come to Rs.5872/- i.e. (11,743 – 1/2
of 11,743). Thus, applying the multiplier of 18 as per the age of
deceased, the future loss of dependency would come to
Rs.12,68,352/- i.e. (5872 x 12 x 18).
13. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of
compensation under the heads of loss of estate and funeral
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 18:04:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4473/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
expenses. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors. ( supra ), the
compensation awarded under the aforesaid heads is enhanced to
Rs.18,150/- each.
14. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of
compensation under the head of loss of consortium. The claim
petition came to be filed by the father and the brother of the
deceased. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors.
( supra ), father of the deceased is entitled to get the compensation
under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, a sum of
Rs.48,400/- is awarded under the head of loss of consortium.
15. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the original
claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the following amount
of compensation under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future Loss of Dependency 12,68,352/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium 48,400/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Total Compensation 13,53,052/-
Less: compensation already awarded by the
learned Tribunal
8,29,000/-
Additional amount of Compensation 5,24,052/-
16. The learned Tribunal had already awarded a sum of
Rs.8,29,000/-. Therefore, the claimants/appellants shall be
entitled for the additional compensation of Rs. 5,24,052/- i. e.
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 18:04:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4473/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
(Rs.13,53,052/- -(less) Rs.8,29,000/-). The learned Tribunal has
awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, therefore,
the claimants/appellants shall also be entitled for the interest at
the rate of 7.5% on the additional amount of compensation.
17. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal
stands allowed partly. The impugned judgment and award is
modified to the aforesaid extent accordingly.
18. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with the
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition till its realization, within a period of 6 weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
19. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal
shall disburse the amount to the original claimant/s, after
deducting the deficit court fees, if any, and after due verification.
20. Statutory amount, if any, lying/deposited with the Registry
of this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith.
21. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 18:04:39 IST 2026