BHANUBEN BABUBHAI ALIAS BALUBHAI VASAVA vs SURESH BADRIPRASAD YADAV
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3199/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240409602021)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3199 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHANUBEN BABUBHAI ALIAS BALUBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
Versus
SURESH BADRIPRASAD YADAV & 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. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 27/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants
– original claimants for enhancement of the amount of
compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated
19.03.2021 passed by the M.A.C.T. (Aux.) & Additional District
Judge, Ankleshwar in New M.A.C.P. No.1769 of 2013 (Old
M.A.C.P. No.601 of 2013) whereby, the learned Tribunal has
awarded amount of compensation of Rs.7,78,792/- with
interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of application till
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:42:40 IST 2026
C/FA/3199/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240409602021)
final realization from the opponent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally.
2. Factual matrix of the case are that on 28.01.2013 at
about 1.30 p.m., deceased - Babubhai @ Balubhai Chandubhai
Vasava was crossing the road near Bhathiji Temple at village:
Rayama on Hansot - Vadoli road, at that time, the opponent
No.1 - driver of the Tanker came there by driving his Tanker
bearing registration No.GJ-16-V-3050 in a rash and negligent
manner and lost control over the steering and hit his Tanker
with the deceased, as a result, the deceased received fatal
bodily injuries and died on the spot due to the accidental
injuries. As per the case of the original claimants, the
deceased was healthy and young and 42 years old at the time
of accident. The deceased was employee of Narendrabhai
Bhatt of the same village and was doing the work of tractor
driving there and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The
deceased was also having knowledge of tractor repairing work
and was doing the repairing work of the tractor. Thus, at the
time of accident, the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month and there was possibility that the deceased could have
earned more income in the future. Pursuant to that, the claim
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:42:40 IST 2026
C/FA/3199/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240409602021)
petition has been filed by the original claimants i.e. claimant
No.1 – widow, claimant Nos.2 and 3 – daughters and claimant
No.4 - son of the deceased. Claimants Nos.5 and 6 are the
parents of the deceased, who were subsequently deleted.
2.1. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal was
pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded an
amount of compensation of Rs.7,78,792/- with interest at the
rate of 8% p.a. from the date of application till final realization
from the opponent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally by
judgment and award dated 19.03.2021.
2.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment
and award, the present appeal has been preferred by the
original claimants for enhancement of the amount of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
3. Learned advocate Ms.Viral Modi appearing for learned
advocate Mr.Nishit Bhalodi for the appellants submitted that
the present appellants – original claimants have challenged
the impugned judgment and award on the grounds that the
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:42:40 IST 2026
C/FA/3199/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240409602021)
learned Tribunal has committed error by considering income
of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. The learned Tribunal
ought to have considered that the deceased was working as
driver of Tractor and, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to
have considered that the driving of Tractor requires special
skills than that of driving of the other four wheel vehicles.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered
Rs.9,000/- monthly income of the deceased. The learned
Tribunal ought to have considered the 'Consumer Price Index'
and 'Cost of Inflation Index' in the year 2013 and ought to
have considered income of Rs.9,000/- per month of the
deceased. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered Rs.5,000/- as notional income of the deceased in
case where, the accident has occurred in 2001-2002.
Therefore, considering the accident occurred in the year
2013, monthly income of the deceased may kindly be
considered at Rs.9,000/- in the interest of justice. The
appellants relie upon the judgment of Sanobanu V.
Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (Civil Appeal No.
8251 of 2013) and Chameli Devi V. Jivrail Mian (2019 ACJ
3011).
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:42:40 IST 2026
C/FA/3199/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240409602021)
3.1. That the deceased was the sole bread winner for the
family of 5 members. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to
have appreciated that minimum Rs.9,000/- per month is
required to maintain the expenses of a family of 5 members.
3.2. That the learned Tribunal has committed error by
allowing only Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and ought to
have allowed Rs.40,000/- towards consortium to each
appellant by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt.
Somwati and others [Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 2020), Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram Alias Churu Ram &
Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018], United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur [Civil Application No. 2705 of 2020
and Kirti & Anr Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Civil Appeal
No. 19-20 of 2021].
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Palak Thakkar for the
respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the appeal and
submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per month and no cogent
evidence has been produced. It is submitted that the learned
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:42:40 IST 2026
C/FA/3199/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240409602021)
Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount towards loss of
dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of
consortium and considering the overall evidence produced by
the original claimants, the learned Tribunal has passed the
impugned judgment and award and, therefore, findings
recorded by the learned Tribunal are just and proper and do
not require any interference.
5. Having heard the rival submissions of the respective
parties, perusing the judgment and award passed by the
learned Tribunal, so far as the income of Rs.4500/- per month
of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal is
concerned, it is an admitted position that the accident took
place in the year 2013 and as per the Minimum Wages Act,
prevailing at the relevant time, minimum wages of Rs.5180/-
is required to be considered. Further, 25% prospective future
income is required to be considered as the age of the
deceased was 42 year at the time of accident. So far as
deduction is concerned, the learned Tribunal has deducted ¼
amount, considering that there are 6 members in the family,
which is just and proper.
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:42:40 IST 2026
C/FA/3199/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240409602021)
6. So far as the funeral expense of Rs.15,000/- awarded by
the learned Tribunal is concerned, it can be calculated as
Rs.19,965/-, loss of estate calculated by the learned Tribunal
as Rs.15,000/- can be replaced with Rs.19,965/- and loss of
consortium also awarded by the learned Tribunal to the tune
of Rs.40,000/- but, considering the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance vs.
Satinder Kaur, reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780, every
dependent member in the family is entitled for the loss of
consortium. So, considering that there are 6 members in the
family, amount of Rs.53,240/- x 6, would comes to
Rs.3,19,440/-.
7. As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get
compensation computed as under:-
Heads Awarded by
Tribunal
Reassessed by
this Court
Income +
Prospective
(45 years)
Rs.4500/-
25%
Rs.5180/- (Minimum Wages)
25%
Rs.5625/- Rs.6475/-
Dependency
(6 members)
1/4th (1406) 1/4th (1619)
4219 x 12 4856 x 12
Multiplier 14 14
Loss of
Dependency
Rs.7,08,792/- Rs.8,15,808/-
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:42:40 IST 2026
C/FA/3199/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240409602021)
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.19,965/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15000/- Rs.19,965/-
Consortium
(6 members)
Rs.40,000/- Rs.3,19,440/- (53,240 x 6)
Total Rs.7,78,792/- Rs.11,75,178/-
8. Thus, considering the above, the learned Tribunal has
awarded amount of compensation of Rs.7,78,792/- and the
claimants are entitled to get enhanced amount of
Rs.3,96,386/- at the rate of 8% p.a.
9. Hence, the present appeal is partly allowed. The
judgment and award dated 19.03.2021 passed by the M.A.C.T.
(Aux.) & Additional District Judge, Ankleshwar in New
M.A.C.P. No.1769 of 2013 (Old M.A.C.P. No.601 of 2013)
stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The rest of the
judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondents
shall deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.3,96,386/- along with
interest as awarded by the Tribunal before the Tribunal within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
10. Considering the fact that the accident took place in the
year 2013 and period of 13 years has already passed, after
depositing the enhanced amount by the insurance company,
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:42:40 IST 2026
C/FA/3199/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240409602021)
the total amount, which has been 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
A/c.Payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS on proper verification and
after following due procedure.
11. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the
deficit court fees on the enhanced amount and thereafter,
disburse the amount accordingly.
12. The Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
13. Award to be drawn accordingly.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Hitesh
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:42:40 IST 2026