JASHUBEN ALIAS SHARDABEN KANIYALAL ALIAS KANJIBHAI vs MITULBHAI BHARATBHAI GADHVI

C/FA/3259/2022 (GJHC240164042020) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3259 of 2022
=============================================
JASHUBEN ALIAS SHARDABEN KANIYALAL ALIAS KANJIBHAI &
ORS.
Versus
MITULBHAI BHARATBHAI GADHVI & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 02/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in the present appeal under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to the judgment and award
dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux.-II), Limbdi, District Surendranagar, in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1 of 2017, whereby the
learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till
realization, jointly and severally recoverable from opponent
Nos.1 to 3. Opponent No.4 is the mother of the deceased and
has been joined as a party in the proceedings.
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 19:08:55 IST 2026

C/FA/3259/2022 (GJHC240164042020) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
2. The background of the case is that, on 12.04.2016,
Kanaiyalal @ Kanjibhai Lakshmanbhai (deceased) was riding a
bicycle at a moderate speed. When he reached near
Sambhavnath Petrol Pump on the Rajkot-Ahmedabad
Highway, at that time, the truck-trailer bearing registration
No.GJ-12-BT-1291, driven by opponent No.1 at an excessive
speed, lost control and turned turtle, thereby dashing against
the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and
succumbed to the said injuries.
2.1 It is the case of the claimants that, at the time of
the accident, the deceased was 45 years of age and was
working as a mason, earning Rs.15,000/- per month and
maintaining his family. The deceased was hale and hearty and
was the sole breadwinner of the family. In addition to his
masonry work, the deceased was also earning an agricultural
income of Rs.1,00,000/- from the agricultural land held by
him.
2.2 Based upon the aforesaid pleadings, the claimants
claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest and
proportionate costs. The Insurance Company, by filing its
written statement at Exhibit 12, raised the usual defences,
contending, inter alia, that the accident occurred due to the
sole negligence of the deceased and, therefore, the claimants
were not entitled to any compensation.
2.3 The learned Tribunal framed the issues at Ex.17.
None appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company, i.e.
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 19:08:55 IST 2026

C/FA/3259/2022 (GJHC240164042020) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
opponent No.3, entered into the witness box. Considering the
evidence produced by the claimants, the learned Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.5,60,065/-, rounded off to
Rs.5,60,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of the petition till realization.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and award, the claimants have preferred the
present appeal before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera
appearing for the claimants and learned advocate Mr.
Dakshesh Mehta appearing for respondent No.3 – National
Insurance Company Limited. Though served, none appeared
for respondent No.1.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera, taking this
Court through the facts of the case, submitted that the
learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in assessing
the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month, instead of
considering the applicable rate of minimum wages, which
ought to have been taken by the learned Tribunal in the
absence of any contrary evidence. She further submitted that,
at the time of the accident, the minimum wages prescribed for
a skilled labourer were Rs.8,133/- per month and, therefore,
the said amount ought to have been considered as the
monthly income of the deceased.
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 19:08:55 IST 2026

C/FA/3259/2022 (GJHC240164042020) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
4.1 She further submitted that the documentary
evidence produced on record indicates that the deceased was
jointly holding at least five different parcels of agricultural
land and, therefore, the claimants were also entitled to
compensation towards supervisory loss/income arising from
the agricultural activities, which was required to be assessed
by the learned Tribunal. As regards the non-pecuniary heads,
she submitted that the claimants were entitled to
enhancement under the head of loss of consortium, including
individual consortium to the respective claimants, as well as
enhancement under the heads of loss of estate and funeral
expenses. She, therefore, submitted that the appeal be
allowed and enhanced the compensation.
5. Per contra, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate
appearing for the Insurance Company, submitted that the
appeal may be dismissed and the impugned judgment and
award passed by the learned Tribunal may be upheld.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties and perused the judgment and award as
well as the record and proceedings.
7. At the outset, it is apt to note that the claimants
had claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month by doing masonry work. Apart from claiming an income
of Rs.15,000/- per month, it was also claimed that the
deceased was earning an agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000/-
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 19:08:55 IST 2026

C/FA/3259/2022 (GJHC240164042020) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
from the agricultural land. So far as the claim of monthly
income of Rs.15,000/- is concerned, there is no evidence on
record to substantiate the same. The accident took place on
12.04.2016. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 871 , has held that where there is no evidence
regarding the income of the deceased, the Court has to take
the minimum wages as the yardstick for determining the
income.
In view of the judgment of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel
(supra), the minimum wages prescribed by the State
Government for a skilled worker are required to be
considered. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
“8. Adverting to the facts at hand, the appellant was an
8year-old child at the time of the accident. In view of the
above exposition of law, we must advert to the prevailing
minimum wages, which for the skilled ones, as in the year of
accident, i.e., 2012, in Gujarat would be Rs.227.85p. per day,
therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate
to determine the income of the appellant as Rs.6,835.5p. per
month, rounding off to Rs.6,836/- per month.
8. The learned Tribunal adopted the income of the
deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month without assigning any
reason as to why the minimum wages were not considered as
the basis for determining the income of the deceased.
Nonetheless, while assessing just, fair and adequate
compensation, this Court is required to consider the minimum
wages as the income of the deceased, even in the absence of
documentary evidence, while also giving due probative value
to the oral evidence on record.
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 19:08:55 IST 2026

C/FA/3259/2022 (GJHC240164042020) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
9. The State Government Notification prescribing the
rates of minimum wages for the period commencing from
01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016, which covers the date of the
accident, shows the net wage at Rs.312.80 per day.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come
to Rs.9,384/-.
10. So far as the claim towards supervisory loss is
concerned, there is no evidence on record to establish such
loss, except for the production of copies of the revenue
records. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission
seeking compensation towards supervisory loss.
11. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident
was 45 years. As per the settled proposition of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the
multiplier of 14 is applicable, having regard to the age of the
deceased at the time of the accident. Further, 25% of the
income of the deceased is required to be added towards
future prospects.
12. The deceased is survived by four members.
claimant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are legal heirs of the deceased and
Opponent No.4 is the mother of deceased and has been joined
as a party in the proceedings. Each of the claimants would be
entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium. Claimant
No.1 would be entitled to spousal consortium; claimant Nos.2
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 19:08:55 IST 2026

C/FA/3259/2022 (GJHC240164042020) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
and 3 would be entitled to parental consortium; and opponent
No.4, being the mother of the deceased, would be entitled to
filial consortium. Accordingly, each claimant would be entitled
to Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium, as per the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder
Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780.
13 . The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation
under different heads, which is as under:
Rs.4,90,056 Prospective loss of income
Funeral expenses, love and
Rs. 70,000
affection,
Rs.5,60,056
rounded
(Rs.5,60,000) Total Compensation
14. In light of the aforesaid discussions, the appellants
– original claimants are entitled to following amount of
compensation:
Under the Head of Compensation
of Rs.
Future loss of income
Monthly income = Rs. 9,384/-
13,13,760/-
Prospective income
(Rs.9384 + 25%)= Rs. 11,730/-
Deduction 1/3
(Rs.11,730 x 1/3 ) = Rs. 3,910/-
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 19:08:55 IST 2026

C/FA/3259/2022 (GJHC240164042020) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Total Income
[Rs.11,730–Rs.3910]=Rs. 7,820/-
(Rs.7820 x 12 x 14) = Rs. 13,13,760/-
Loss of consortium
(Rs.48,400 x 4 = Rs.1,45,200/-)
1,93,600/-
Loss of estate 18,150/-
Funeral expenses 18,150/-
Grand Total 15,43,660/-
Less awarded amount of
compensation by Tribunal
5,60,000/-
Enhanced amount
(Rs.14,95,260 – Rs.5,60,000)
9,83,660/-
Interest @9%
15. The claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of
compensation of Rs . 9,83,660 @ 9% per annum from the date
of claim petition till realization from Insurance Company.
16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation with accrued
interest within a period of 12 weeks from today.
17. Upon deposition of the entire amount, the learned
Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the
FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon,
if any, to the claimants and Opponent No.4, by Account Payee
Cheque/NEFT/RTGS, after proper verification and after
following due procedure.
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 19:08:55 IST 2026

C/FA/3259/2022 (GJHC240164042020) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
18 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall
deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with
rules/law.
19. Resultantly, the present First Appeal is allowed to
the aforesaid extent. The judgment and award dated
22.11.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.II), Limbdi, Dist. Surendranagar, is modified to
the aforesaid extent. Record and proceedings, if any, received,
be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal.
20. Connected Civil Application, if any, does not
survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 19:08:55 IST 2026