LEGAL HEIRS OF SURESHKUMAR KESHUBHAI MANDAVIYA vs PASHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 790 of 2010

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI sd/-

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
no
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF SURESHKUMAR KESHUBHAI MANDAVIYA & ORS.
Versus
PASHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Appellant(s) No. 3
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 20/07/2026

JUDGMENT
1. For seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation
nd
granted in the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Special Civil Suit
No.86 of 2006., the original plaintiffs have filed this appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’).
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
[
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
2.1 The deceased - Sureshkumar Keshubhai Mandaviya on
30.08.2005 was expired due to electrocution. The original
plaintiffs are widow, minor son and the mother of the deceased -
Sureshkumar Keshubhai Mandaviya. It is pleaded that the
deceased was 40 years old at the time of the unfortunate
incident. He was the sole bread winner of the family and the
original plaintiffs were dependent upon the deceased’s income.
Basically, on the aforesaid pleading, the original plaintiffs prayed
to grant compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest
from the date of the incident till the amount is realized.
nd
2.2 The learned 2 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh by
impugned judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009, after
considering the evidence on record including the defence raised
by the Paschim Gujarat Vij Co., Ltd. (for short, ‘PGVCL’) and its
officers, pleased to partly decree the suit and granted amount of
Rs.3,73,000/- with 9% yearly interest from the date of the suit
till realization.
2.3 The original plaintiffs being aggrieved have preferred this
appeal for enhancement of compensation amount.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Nishit A Bhalodi appearing for the
appellants - original plaintiffs made two fold submissions.
3.1 Firstly, he submitted that the learned trial Court did not
refer to the income tax return filed prior to the death of the
deceased - Sureshkumar Keshubhai Mandaviya to ascertain the
income of the deceased. Secondly, he would submit that the
learned trial Court failed to draw analogy from the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to grant just and fair compensation, to the
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
victim of accident due to electrocution in present case.
3.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi would further submit
that, in view of the last income tax return filed by the deceased
prior to his death, his yearly income would come to Rs.38,598/-.
The learned trial Court was required to take up that amount as
the income of the deceased. He would further submit that in
view of the settled provision of the law by the Constitution Bench
of India in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the multiplier of 15 was required
to be granted as the deceased was 40 years old at the time of the
incident. Further, 25% was required to be granted towards loss
of future prospects after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards
the personal and pocket expenses.
3.3 Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur,
reported in 2021 (11) SCC 780, learned Advocate Mr. Nishit
Bhalodi submitted that each of the original plaintiffs are entitled
to the compensation for loss of consortium in tune of
Rs.40,000/-. Lastly, learned Advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi prayed
to grant Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of estate and funeral
expenses as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (supra).
3.4 Mainly upon above arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Nishit
Bhalodi submitted to allow this appeal and to enhance the
amount of compensation.
4. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Premal R Joshi appearing
for the respondents – original defendants referred to the
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
deposition at Exh.47 and submitted that the witness examined
by the plaintiff was filing the income tax return, for and on
behalf of the deceased - Sureshkumar Keshubhai Mandaviya, he
had deposed that Exh.23 the income tax return for assessment
year 2004-05 was filed after the death of the deceased -
Sureshkumar Keshubhai Mandaviya. Therefore, such income tax
return filed after death of the deceased cannot be considered to
grant compensation.
4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Premal Joshi submitted that the
learned trial Court, in absence of other convincing evidences for
calculating the income of the deceased, taken up the notional
income at Rs.3,000/- and calculated Rs.36,000/- yearly income.
Therefore, learned Advocate Mr. Premal Joshi submitted that the
learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing the
impugned judgment and decree and therefore, submitted to
dismiss this appeal.
5. Regard being had to the rival submissions made by the
learned Advocates appearing for both the sides and considering
the impugned judgment and decree in as much as record and
proceeding of the suit, at the outset, let me record that the
finding of the learned trial Court, in regards to death of the
deceased - Sureshkumar Keshubhai Mandaviya due to
negligence of PGVCL and he being electrocuted on fateful day,
has not been questioned by the PGVCL. In fact, PGVCL has not
challenged the impugned judgment and decree by filing appeal
or cross-objection. Rather, PGVCL has accepted the impugned
judgment and decree.
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
6. In aforesaid background, I may refer to the issues framed
by the learned trial Court, which reads as under:
“1. Whether the plaintiff proves the
alleged negligence of the defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant is responsible for the
compensation? If yes?
3. What should be the amount of
compensation?
4. What order and decree?”
6.1 The first and second issues were answered in affirmative.
For third issue, the learned trial Court assessed compensation of
Rs.3,73,000/- and for fourth issue, passed the impugned
judgment and decree. It is finding of the issue no.3 which
bothers the original plaintiffs.
6.2 The learned trial Court while assessing the compensation,
referred to the concept of ‘notional income’ and took up
Rs.3,000/- as monthly income and Rs.36,000/- as yearly
income. The learned trial Court did not grant any compensation
for loss of future prospects and even did not grant the
compensation for other non-pecuniary/conventional heads. It is
true that the case on hand is covered by the provision of the
Fatal Accident Act, 1855, however, in absence of any formula to
calculate fair compensation, one can draw the analogy from
formula applied in motor accident cases to assess just and fair
compensation, as ultimate task is to grant a just and fair
compensation of the bereaved family of the deceased -
Sureshkumar Keshubhai Mandaviya, who lost his life due to
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
electrocution.
6.3 In addition to above, the learned trial Court took up
multiplier of 10 without granting compensation for future
prospects and granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium.
It appears that, while assessing the yearly income at
Rs.36,000/-, the learned trial Court ignored the income tax
return of the original plaintiff, which are placed in page no.175
and 177 and both were filed on 22.03.2005, accepted by the
Joint Commissioner, Income Tax and the last income tax return
was filed for the assessment of the year 2004-05.
7. In regards to evidentiary value of income tax return filed
during lifetime of the deceased, recently, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rashmirekha Tripathy And Anr. vs. The
Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance
Company Limited and Ors., reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 654,
in para nos.17 to 20 held as under:
...“17. In the considered view of this Court,
there can be no hard and fast formula for
computing the annual income of a deceased
person/claimant. ITRs being a statutory
document are an important reference point
when it comes to assessing one's income, for
the purposes of compensation under the
Motor Vehicle Act.
18. We find force in the submission put
forth by Mr. J.R 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
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
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
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
e) Any other relevant factor relating to the
business.
20. The date when the ITRs are filed would
also become a relevant consideration, as
there may be scenarios where inflated
income is showcased after death/injury. In
these circumstances, the surrounding
factors of the business would become more
relevant. However, if sufficiently supported
by financial statements, such ITRs may also
be taken into consideration.”...
8. In view of the above, the income tax return of the deceased
- Sureshkumar Keshubhai Mandaviya filed prior to his death,
becomes a relevant consideration for deciding the compensation.
9. In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Constitution Bench judgment in case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the loss for future prospects
requires to be assessed and granted. Moreover, the multiplier
stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma &
Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr., reported in 2009 (6) SCC
121, has to be applied and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur
(supra), the standardized deduction for personal and living
expenses of the deceased and compensation in regards to the
loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are to be
granted, while assessing just and fair compensation. In the
present case, admittedly the deceased was survived by three
rd
plaintiffs and therefore, 1/3 of the income is required to be
deducted towards personal and living expenses. The deceased
was 40 years old, and this age is not disputed by the PGVCL. It
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
takes the Court to grant 25% towards loss of future prospects.
As against the age of 40, multiplier of 15% provided in the case
of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. (supra),
and thus, same is applied. Last income of the deceased from the
income tax return placed at page nos.175 and 177 filed on
22.03.2005, much earlier to the death of the deceased proves
that he was earning Rs.38,598/-. The last income tax return
accepted by the Income Tax Department picturize the income of
the deceased to Rs.38,598/-. Therefore, taking all these
parameters, the amount of compensation has been assessed.
10. The computation of the compensation amount reads as
under:
Compensation Heads Amount
Yearly income (Rs.38,598 + 25% Future
prospects)
rd
Rs.48,247 -1/3 (Rs.16,082)
= Rs.32,165 x 15
Rs.4,82,475/-
Consortium (3 plaintiffs x 40) (+) Rs.1,20,000/-
Estate and funeral expenses (+) Rs.30,000/-
Total amount
Rs.6,32,475/-
Award amount (-) Rs.3,73,000/-
Enhancement amount Rs.2,59,475/-
10.1 As far as order of granting 9% interest per annum by the
learned trial Court is concerned, it is upheld.
11. In view of the above finding and reasons, the present
appeal is partly allowed. The plaintiffs would be entitled to get
additional amount of compensation of Rs.2,59,475/- with
interest at 9% per annum the date of the suit till realization. The
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026

C/FA/790/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
PGVCL shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation
within eight weeks from the date of this order before the learned
trial Court. The entire amount shall be disbursed to the original
plaintiffs. If any additional court fee is required, same shall be
deducted before amount of disbursement.
12. The impugned judgment and decree is modified to the
aforesaid extent in aforesaid terms and fresh decree to be drawn.
Civil application, if any, does not survive. Record and proceeding
to be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.
sd/-
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
PARMAR KRISH
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 15:08:34 IST 2026