MUKESHBHAI BABUBHAI LATHIYA vs HARDIKBHAI POPATBHAI LATHIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2252 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MUKESHBHAI BABUBHAI LATHIYA & ANR.
Versus
HARDIKBHAI POPATBHAI LATHIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 24/08/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 21.09.2024 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) & Principal District Judge, at Bhavnagar
in M.A.C.P. No.91 of 2020, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly
allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.16,44,000/-, 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 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
i. On 15.05.2020, Mr. Rutvikbhai Mukeshbhai Lathiya
(hereinafter referred to as the “ deceased ”) was
travelling to Nanimal Village in an Innova car bearing
registration No.GJ-05-CS-4704. The said car was being
driven by original opponent No.1/respondent No.1 herein
in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive
speed and as a result, he lost control over the steering of
the said car and the said car turned turtle. As a result of
the said vehicular accident, the deceased sustained
serious injuries and he 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 21
years and he was earning substantial income from his
business. 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.2/respondent No.2 –
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.
3. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record and the
submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.16,44,000/-, 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. Mr. Hakim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that at the time of
the vehicular accident, the deceased was running a business, thereby
earning substantial income. In order to prove the income of the
deceased, claimants/appellants herein have proved the income tax
returns for the AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21 at Exhs.46 & 47
respectively. He submitted that the income tax returns were duly
proved on record, however, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the said
income tax returns on the ground that the returns proved at Exh.47 has
been declared invalid and the returns proved at Exh.46 has been filed
with a view to avail loan facility. He argued that the said findings
returned by the learned Tribunal is perverse and is without any basis
and is hence, erroneous. He submitted that the income tax returns
proved at Exh.47 came to be filed after the death of the deceased,
however, the income tax returns proved at Exh.46 was filed by the
deceased himself, therefore, argued that the learned Tribunal ought to
have considered the said income tax returns proved at Exh.46 to assess
the annual income of the deceased. He further submitted that the
claimants has also examined PW2 – Mr. Amitkumar Dipukumar Singh,
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
an employee of Income Tax Department, Surat at Exh.43 to prove the
income of the deceased. The said witness proved that the income tax
returns for the AY 2019-20 was filed on 26.08.2019, while the income
tax return for the AY 2020-21 has been declared invalid. The claimants
have also filed the supporting documents vide list at Exh.53. Learned
counsel for the original claimants argued that the learned Tribunal
ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the
income tax returns proved at Exh.46. He submitted that the income tax
return is a statutory document, therefore, the same should have
considered by the learned Tribunal to assess the income of the
deceased. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
& Anr. reported in (2020) 4 SCC 228 . Having placed reliance upon
the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the original claimants
submitted that the captioned appeal deserves to be allowed.
7. Per contra, Mr. Dhairyawan D Bhatt, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.2 – 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 at Rs.10,000/- per month. He submitted that the income tax
returns came to be filed under the provisions of Section 44AD of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, i.e., presumptive income. He submitted that the
claimants have not proved the exact income of the deceased on record.
He argued that even the supporting documents have not been proved
on record, as such, argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
respondent No.2 – Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in First
Appeal No.4442 of 2025 titled as Diptiben Rajendrabhai Bhatt
(LHS-LRS of Late Rajendrabhai Amrutbhai Bhatt) & Ors. Vs.
Kishorbhai Bhikhabhai Patel & Anr. and the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand reported in [2025] 0 INSC 15 .
Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel
for the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company vehemently argued that
the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- 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.
QUANTUM
9. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is to be noted that the
deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and he
was running a business. In order to prove the income, the claimant
No.1 – Mr. Mukeshbhai Babubhai Lathiya has filed his affidavit in
examination-in-chief at Exh.28. In the said affidavit, he deposed that at
the time of the vehicular accident, the deceased was aged 21 years and
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
he was running a business, thereby earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month.
The claimants/appellants herein have also proved the income tax
returns for the AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21 at Exhs.46 & 47
respectively. In cross-examination, it was suggested that the balance-
sheet prepared by the Chartered Accountant has not been filed. It
emerges from the records that thereafter, the claimants/appellants
have filed the balance-sheet and statement of account along with the
Chartered Accountant’s Certificate at Exh.53. The claimants have also
examined PW2 – Mr. Amitkumar Dipukumar Singh, an employee of the
Income Tax Department, Surat. The said witness proved the income tax
returns for the AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21 at Exhs.46 & 47
respectively. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the
income tax returns for the AY 2020-21 has been declared invalid. The
learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, disbelieved
both the income tax returns on the ground that income tax returns for
the AY 2020-21 has been declared invalid and the income tax returns
for the AY 2019-20 has been filed with a view to obtain finance from
the bank. However, the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal is
not supported by the material on record. Neither it is the case of the
claimants that the income tax returns for the AY 2019-20 has been filed
with a view to obtain finance nor it has been the case of the respondent
No.2 – Insurance Company. Further, no examination or cross-
examination has been conducted on that aspect. Therefore, the findings
returned by the learned Tribunal on this aspect is perverse.
10. It also emerges from the record that the income tax return
proved at Exh.47 was filed after the death of the deceased, therefore,
the same cannot be taken into consideration, however, the income tax
returns proved at Exh.46 is filed on 26.08.2019. The vehicular accident
in question took place on 15.05.2020, therefore, Exh.46 return was filed
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
prior to the accident by the deceased himself. As such, there is no
reason to disbelieve the income tax returns for the AY 2019-20 proved
at Exhs.46, more particularly when the claimants/appellants have
produced the certificate of Chartered Accountant who prepared the
balance-sheet along with copy of income tax returns and supporting
documents. Further, the balance-sheet reveals that the deceased had
earned a profit of Rs.2,96,881/- for the financial year ending on
31.03.1999. It further emerges from the records that the deceased has
paid the income tax to the tune of Rs.2,344/-. Therefore, the net
annual income would come to Rs.2,94,537/-. In the case of Diptiben
Rajendrabhai Bhatt (LHS-LRS of Late Rajendrabhai Amrutbhai
Bhatt) & Ors. (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this High Court has
considered the income shown in the income tax return. Further, in the
case of Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that the income could be determined, taking into account the
tax returns only if details of payment of tax are appropriately brought
into evidence so as to enable Tribunal/Court to calculate income in
accordance with law.
11. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the income tax return
for the AY 2019-20 has been duly prove on record. In addition to this,
the balance-sheet as well as the P & L Account has also been placed on
record. Thus, in light of the evidence available on record, in my
considered view, the income tax return proved at Exh.46 can be taken
into account to determine the income of the deceased. Further, in the
case of Malarvizhi & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
that income tax return being a statutory document, can be taken into
consideration to assess the income of the deceased. Thus, in view of
the above discussions, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on
the aspect of income tax is not sustainable. Accordingly, the annual
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.2,94,537/- (i.e.,
Rs.2,96,881/- minus Rs.2,344/-).
12. It emerges from the records that the deceased was aged about
21 years at the time of the vehicular accident, therefore, considering
the age of the deceased at the time of the vehicular accident, the
income of the deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% on account
of his future prospects, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of the National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 . Thus, after adding
40% of the income to the annual income of the deceased, the income
of the deceased would come to the tune of Rs.4,12,352/- (i.e,
Rs.2,94,537/- plus 40% of Rs.2,94,537/-).
13. It emerges from the record that the deceased was a baceholor,
therefore, in view of the ratio of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), ½ of the annual income of
the deceased is required to be deducted on account of the personal
expenses of the deceased. Thus, after deducting ½ of the annual
income on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the
annual income for calculating the Future loss of dependency would
come to Rs.2,06,176/- (i.e., Rs.4,12,352/- minus ½ of Rs.4,12,352/-).
14. 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.37,11,168/- (i.e, Rs.2,06,176/- X multiplier of
“18”) under the head of Future Loss of Dependency.
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
15. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the
conventional heads are not under challenge. Therefore, 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
37,11,168/-
Dependency.
2 Loss of Consortium. (+) 96,000/-
3 Loss of Estate. (+) 18,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses. (+) 18,000/-
5 Total Compensation 38,43,168/-
6 Less : Compensation
already awarded by the
/-
(-) 16,44,000
learned Tribunal.
7 Enhanced amount of
21,99,168/-
compensation.
17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimants/
appellants herein shall be entitled for an additional compensation to the
tune of Rs.21,99,168/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition
till 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.
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2252/2025 (GJHC240002902025) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
18. In view thereof, Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
directed 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 10 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 01:35:40 IST 2026