C/FA/2753/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2753 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== HEMLATABEN DILIPBHAI CHAVDA, LH OF DECD MINOR YANSHIBEN DILIPBHAI CHAVDA Versus SUNILBHAI PRAVINBHAI SAVARIYA & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 02/07/2026 JUDGMENT 1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Morbi in MACP No.12/2023, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on C/FA/2753/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026 28.11.2021, at about 1:00 p.m., the minor deceased-Yanshiben Dilipbhai Chavda, her father-in-law and the husband of the claimant were returning from Ansudrali Village to Padadhra Village to their home at Lito Ceramics by travelling on the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152. On the said motorcycle, the deceased and her father- in-law were travelling as a pillion rider and the husband of the claimant was driving the said motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed. When they reached at the place of accident, the driver-husband attempted to overtake one vehicle which was going ahead of his motorcycle without taking due care and without following the traffic rules, in the meantime, one unknown motorcycle came from the opposite direction and resultantly, the unknown motorcycle dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant’s husband. Due to the impact of the said accident, the minor deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries during treatment. 3. On being served, the respondent no.2/insurance company filed its written statement at Exh.11, thereby denying all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition. 4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned C/FA/2753/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026 judgment and award on the ground of quantum as well as negligence. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 7. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was minor, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased as per minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. He submitted that the accident in question took place on 28.11.2021. At the relevant point of time, the minimum wages as notified by the Government of Gujarat was Rs.9,490/- per month. He further submitted that 40% of the income ought to have been added on account of future prospects of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation under conventional heads. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 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. Having placed the reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for enhancement of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the accident took place owing to the composite negligence of the rider of motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152 and rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385. He submitted that the learned Tribunal held both the riders contributorily negligent for causing the accident in the ratio of 50:50. He submitted that the deceased being C/FA/2753/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026 a pillion rider at the time of accident, sustained the injuries owing to the composite negligence of the riders of the both motorcycles, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% of the awarded amount on account of the non-impleadment of the rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in case of composite negligence, the claimant can recover the compensation from any of the tortfeasors. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273. 9. Per contra, Mr. Harsh A. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2/insurance company vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation as at the time of accident, the deceased was minor, hence, she was not having the actual income. Therefore, in absence of any income, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 further submitted that the claimant has not impleaded the rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385. He submitted that the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the recovery rights against the owner and rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the captioned appeal. Page 4 of 9 C/FA/2753/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026 11. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the original claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum as well as negligence. 12. So far as the negligence is concerned, at the time of accident, the deceased was minor and she was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred owing to the composite negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ- 36N-3152 and the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ- 09L-6385. The learned Tribunal has apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 50:50 between both the riders of the motorcycles. It is not in dispute that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider, therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the minor deceased. 13. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum. The accident in question took place on 28.11.2021. In absence of any cogent proof of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. At the relevant point of time, the minimum wages as notified by the Government of Gujarat was Rs.9,490/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.9,490/- per month. Further, considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the monthly income is added on account of future prospects of the deceased. Thus, after adding 40% to the monthly income, it would come to Rs.13,286/- i.e. (9,490+9,490X40%). It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the C/FA/2753/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026 deceased was minor, 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 of the deceased, the monthly income for calculating the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,643/- i.e. (13,286-13,286X1/2). Thus, applying the multiplier of 15 as per the age of the deceased, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,95,740/- i.e. (6,643X12X15). 14. The learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation under the conventional heads, therefore, a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate. 15. The claim petition came to be filed by the mother of the deceased, therefore, the claimant is also entitled to get the compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Hence accordingly, a sum of Rs.48,400/- is awarded under the head of loss of consortium. 16. In view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following heads:- Sr. No. Particular Amount 1. Future loss of dependency 11,95,740/- 2. Loss of consortium 48,400/- 3. Loss of estate 18,150/- 4. Funeral expenses 18,150/- Total 12,80,440/- 17. The learned Tribunal has deducted 50% of the awarded amount C/FA/2753/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026 on account of non-impleadment of the owner, rider and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385. As observed above, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on account of composite negligence of rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N- 3152 and and rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L- 6385. In case of composite negligence, the claimant can recover the compensation from any of the tortfeasors, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors., reported in 2008 (3) SCC 748, Pawan kumar Vs. Harkishan Dass Mohanlal, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 590 and Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273. In case of Khenyei (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 22.1 and 22.3, has observed as under:- “22.1 In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. 22.3 In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/ extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.” 18. Thus, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Khenyei (supra), the deduction of 50% of the C/FA/2753/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026 compensation on account of non-impleadment of the rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385 is not sustainable. Hence, the finding returned by the learned Tribunal to that extent is set aside. However, the insurance company after paying the entire awarded amount, may recover the 50% of the said amount from the owner, rider and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385 by way of filing the execution petition before the learned Tribunal concerned. So far as the remaining 50% of the awarded amount is concerned, the learned Tribunal has observed that the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152 was not holding the valid driving license at the time of accident and accordingly, the learned Tribunal has granted the recovery rights against the owner and rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152. In view of that, the insurance company at the first instance shall pay the entire awarded amount and thereafter may recover 50% of the awarded amount from the rider and owner of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152. 19. The learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- as a compensation, therefore, the original claimant/appellant shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.10,18,440/- i.e. (12,80,440-2,62,000). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 7% per annum, therefore, the original claimant/appellant shall be entitled for the same rate of interest on additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 20. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands allowed partly and the impugned judgment and award is to be modified C/FA/2753/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026 to the aforesaid extent. The respondent no.2/insurance company at the first instance shall deposit the entire awarded amount including additional amount of compensation along with interest and thereafter shall be at liberty to recover the same from the rider and owner of the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-36N-3152 and the rider, owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-09L-6385 in the ratio of 50:50 by way of filing the execution petition before the learned Tribunal concerned. 21. Upon depositing of the said amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation along with interest to the original claimant/appellant herein after deducting deficit of Court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any, lying deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs. 22. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal concerned. (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: HARSHIT SANCHETI(HCD0070), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/07/2026 10:29:05