C/FA/1922/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1922 of 2025 ========================================================== LH OF DECD RAJESHBHAI SHANABHAI VALAND, PURNABEN RAJESHBHAI VALAND Versus OM PRAKASH RATANLAL YOGI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 23/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the original claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. no. 570 of 2023, whereby the claim petition was allowed partly and learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,78,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till realization. 2. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the present appeal are summarized as under:- i. The claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the petition on the averments that the father of claimant, on 15.08.2023 was standing at the place of incident and at C/FA/1922/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 about 1:45 pm, a Tanker bearing Registration No. GJ-12- BV-0319, which was being driven by the opponent no.1 therein, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the father of the claimant. Due to the impact of the said accident, the father of the claimant sustained serious and multiple injuries, and thereafter, succumbed to the injuries. ii. Upon serving summons of the petition, the Insurance company filed Written Statement vide Exh.13. iii.After considering the pleadings and material on record, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues at Exh. 21. 1. Whether the applicant proves that the deceased died because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, the opponent No. 1 of the vehicle involved in the accident? 2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to get compensation? if yes, what amount and from whom? 3. What award and order? iv. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidences and material on record, such as Affidavit of the Claimant (Exh. 23), Copy of Permit of offending vehicle (Exh. 25), Copy of charge-sheet (Exh. 26), Adhaar Card of deceased (Exh. 27), Copy of Complaint (Exh. 28), Copy of Panchnama ((Exh. 29), Copy of Inquest Panchnama (Exh. 30), Copy of P. M. Report of the deceased (Exh. 31), Copy of R.C. Book of offending vehicle (Exh. 32), Copy of Insurance Policy of offending C/FA/1922/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 vehicle (Exh. 33), Adhaar Card of Applicant (Exh. 34), Pan Card of Applicant (Exh. 35) and Bank Pass Book of Applicant (Exh. 36), the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of. Rs. 6,78,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Only) as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per-annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization and all the opponents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. v. Being aggrieved, the original claimant has preferred the instant appeal, inter alia on the ground that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at lower side. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Ms. Pooja H Hotchandani, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the father of the appellant was a barber and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from the said work at the time of the accident. However, the notional income of the deceased was considered as Rs. 7,500/- per month by the learned Tribunal. She further submitted that in absence of proof of income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased as per minimum wages. She further submitted that the father of the claimant was a skilled worker, as he was a barber and at the relevant point of time, the minimum wages for such a skilled worker was Rs.12,324/- per month, therefore, in place C/FA/1922/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 of Rs. 7,500/- per month, the income of the deceased could have been ascertained as Rs. 12,324/- per month. She further submitted that the income of the deceased is required to be ascertained as Rs. 12,324/- and accordingly, 10% rise to the income is required to be added on account of the future prospects, as the father of the claimant was aged about 57 years old at the time of accident. She further submitted that considering the monthly income of the father of the claimant as Rs. 12,324/- and after increasing by 10% on account of the future prospective income, the monthly income would come to Rs. 13,556/-. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/3rd from the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency per month would come to Rs. 9,037/-. Further, the learned Tribunal as applied multiplier of “09”. The said multiplier was applied as per the judgment of the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009, SC 3104. After applying the multiplier of “09”, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs. 9,75,996/-. She further submitted that the award is required to be modified to that extent. 5. On the other hand, Ms. E. Shailaja, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, submitted that the claimant could not prove the income of the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs 7,500/- per month, therefore, C/FA/1922/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award and the present appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records transpires that it was pleaded and deposed before the learned Tribunal that the father of the claimant was a Barber and he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month at the time of the accident. It is also admitted fact that the claimant could not place any proof of income on record, therefore, the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month. It is evident from the record that the income of the deceased was pleaded as Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is also undisputed fact that the deceased was a Barber, therefore, he was earning his livelihood from the occupation as a Barber. The deceased, being Barber would be termed as a skilled worker. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, in absence of a proof of income, could have considered the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages specified by the Government of Gujarat at the relevant point of time. As per the Government Notification, the Government has notified the minimum wages for the skilled worker as Rs.12,324/- for the relevant year. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the minimum wages as the income of the deceased in the absence of proof of income. Therefore, in my considered view, the income of the deceased is required to be ascertained at the rate of minimum wages, i.e., Rs. Page 5 of 8 C/FA/1922/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 12,324/- per month at the time of the accident. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 57 years old, therefore, the claimant is also entitled to get 10% increase on account of future prospective income of the deceased as per the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. After adding 10% of the income on account of the prospective income, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,556/- (i.e. Rs.12,324/- + Rs. 1,232/-). The learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd from the monthly income on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting 1/3rd of the income on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly income would come to Rs. 9,037/-. 7. The deceased was 57 years old at the time of the accident, therefore the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of “09” as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra). After applying the multiplier of “09”, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs. 9,75,996/-. 8. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000/- under the head of loss of estate, a sum of Rs. 48,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, and a sum of Rs. 18,000/- as funeral expenses. Under these heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation as per the direction of the Honorable Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of National Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra). Thus, the amount awarded under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses is not interfered. Page 6 of 8 C/FA/1922/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation. Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded 1 Future loss of dependency Rs. 9,75,996/- 2 Loss of estate Rs. 18,000 3 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- 4 Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 10,60,000/- (rounded of) 9. The learned Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs. 6,78,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Only), therefore, after deducting the amount of compensation, which has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant shall be entitled for an additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,82,000 (Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Only). The claimant shall also be entitled for the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the said additional amount. In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment and award dated 31.01.2025 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest within a period of six weeks from today before the concerned learned Tribunal. 11. If any amount is lying deposited with the Registry of this C/FA/1922/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 court in the captioned Appeal, the same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, is disposed of. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs. (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 01/10/2025 14:21:30