C/FA/1927/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1927 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ============================================ HANSABEN ARVINDBHAI JAISWAL & ORS. Versus LHS OF ARJUNBHAI CHHAGANBHAI JAISWAL & ORS. ============================================ Appearance: NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR JOHNSEY P MACWAN(5498) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1 MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.2,1.3 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 02/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 28.04.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Petlad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.277 of 2018, the appellants – original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). 2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants – original Claimants and Mr. R. P. Raval, learned Advocate for C/FA/1927/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the original record and proceedings. 3) It is the case of the appellants that on 27.06.2016, deceased Arvindbhai Natvarbhai Jaiswal (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased”) was travelling in Car bearing Reg. No.GJ-23- AN-308 and proceeded towards Ode from Bhalej and when they reached Khankuva Road at that time opponent no.1 has lost control over the car due to excessive speed as a result accident was occurred and deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. Therefore, the appellants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition. 4) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- on national basis whereas the Tribunal ought to have considered income as Rs.25,000/- per month as he was doing farming. The Tribunal has also committed error in not considering loss of consortium to each appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal. 5) Learned Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the claimants have not produced any evidence in support of income of the deceased and hence in absence of any evidence the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and therefore the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the compensation. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the appeal. Page 2 of 6 C/FA/1927/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 6) As challenge is given only qua income and consortium hence the appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record then Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum wages in absence of ample evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the present case the accident occurred on 27.06.2016 and during that time the deceased was doing farming and his income is required to be considered as per the Government approved minimum wages, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.8,000/- per month. Further, as the deceased was 48 years old at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal has considered future prospective income as 25% and having 3 dependents 1/3 deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 13 were considered by the learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which are just and proper. 7) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- and future prospect of 25% = Rs.2,000/- which comes to to Rs.10,000/- and 1/3 amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,333/- and the net amount comes to Rs.6,667/-. In view of above the amount under the head of future loss of income is required to be reassessed as Rs.6,667/- C/FA/1927/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 x 12 x 13 = Rs.10,40,052/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.2,60,052/- under the head of future loss of income. 8) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the three conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants – original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral expenses). 9) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the appellants – original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased they are entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.1,45,200/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 3). Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.1,05,200/- under the head of loss of consortium. 10) As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under: C/FA/1927/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 Heads Awarded by Tribunal Reassessed by this Court Future loss of income Rs.7,80,000/- Rs.10,40,052/- including additional amount of Rs.2,60,052/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/- including additional amount of Rs.3,150/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/- including additional amount of Rs.3,150/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,45,200/- including additional amount of Rs.1,05,200/- (Rs.48,400/- X 3) Total compensation Rs.8,50,000/- Rs.12,21,552/- including total additional amount of Rs.3,71,552/- 11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.8,50,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,71,552/- (Rs.12,21,552/- - Rs.8,50,000/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 12) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 28.04.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Petlad, in MAC Petition No.277 of 2018 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent no.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the said additional amount of C/FA/1927/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 Rs.3,71,552/- 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. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 13) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 14) Award to be drawn accordingly. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/12/2025 13:46:05