C/FA/4676/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4676 of 2023 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4675 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================ DAXABEN DIPAKKUMAR BARIA & ORS. Versus MAHENDRASING GULSING CHAUHAN & ORS. ============================================ Appearance: NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,5 RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 17/11/2025 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT Since both these appeals are arising out of the same accident and the grounds and issue involved in both the appeals are common they are being heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The First Appeal No.4675 of 2023 arises out of MAC Petition No.549 of 2014 and the First Appeal No.4676 of 2023 arises out of MAC Petition No.523 of 2014. Page 1 of 9 C/FA/4676/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 27.12.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.523 of 2014 and 549 of 2014, the appellants – original claimants preferred present appeals 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. C. A. Mehta, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 and 5 – Insurance Company. Perused the original record and proceedings. 3) It is the case of the appellants that on 27.03.2014, the deceased Dipakkumar @ Dipsinh Pratapbhai Baria (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased”) along with Bhupendrakumar Udesinh Baria (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “injured”) along with others were travelling in Tempo bearing Reg. No.GJ- 17-K-2110, and when they reached the spot of incident, one Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-3-W-9178, driven by its driver in excess speed in rash and negligent manner came on wrong side and dashed with the Tempo. As a result of which Dipsinh Baria sustained mortal injuries and he succumbed to it, whereas, Bhupendrakumar Baria sustained grievous injuries. A complaint was lodged being I-C.R. No.32 of 2014 against the respondent no.1. Therefore, the appellants have filed MAC Petitions seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed both the claim petitions. Page 2 of 9 C/FA/4676/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 4) The appeals are filed on limited ground that though the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering income of the deceased and injured claimant on notional basis without considering prevalent rates as per minimum wages, consumer price index and cost of inflation in the year 2014 and considered only Rs.4,000/-. Further on the ground of pain, shock and suffering and two months actual loss of income and future prospect are not awarded. Hence, he has requested to enhance the compensation amount in both the appeals. 5) Learned Advocate Mr. C. A. Mehta for Insurance Company has opposed the present appeals on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and no interference is required to call for. With these submissions he has requested to dismissed both the appeals. 6) As both the appeals are filed on limited grounds the same are required to be decided in narrow compass. FIRST APPEAL NO.4675 OF 2023 (MAC PETITION NO.549 OF 2014) 7) 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 applicants. In the present case the accident occurred on 27.03.2014 and during that time the appellant – injured was playing DJ System and farming work and as per the Government approved minimum wages was Rs.5,400/-, C/FA/4676/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the injured is reassessed as Rs.5,400/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has considered disability of the injured as 16% which is consented by both the parties and multiplier of 18 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. However, the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 18 without considering future prospect and awarded Rs.1,38,240/- under the head of future economic loss which is required to be enhanced by 40%, therefore, 40% of Rs.5,400/- is equal to Rs.2,160/- which comes to total Rs.7,560/-. Now total income under the head of future economic loss is required to be considered as Rs.7,560/- x 12 x 16% x 18 / 100 = Rs.2,61,274/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,38,240/- towards future economic loss, however, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,23,034/- under the head of future economic loss. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.10,000/- under the head of special diet, attendant and transportation which are just and proper. However, as discussed above, the actual loss of income is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,400/- for two months which comes to Rs.10,800/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for additional amount of Rs.2,800/- under the head of actual loss as the income of the appellant is reassessed. Page 4 of 9 C/FA/4676/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 8) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation computed as under: Heads Awarded by Tribunal Reassessed by this Court Future economic loss Rs.1,38,240/- Rs.2,61,274/- including additional amount of Rs.1,23,034/- Pain, shock and sufferings Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Actual loss Rs.8,000/- Rs.10,800/- including additional amount of Rs.2,800/- Total compensation Rs.1,71,240/- Rs.2,97,074/- including total additional amount of Rs.1,25,834/- 9) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,71,240/-, however, as discussed above the appellant would be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,25,834/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. FIRST APPEAL NO.4676 OF 2023 (MAC PETITION NO.523 OF 2014) 10) As appeal is filed on the ground of negligence the learned Tribunal has been pleased to fasten the liability on respondent no.3 Insurance Company of Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-3-W- 9178, whereas, respondent no.5 Insurance Company of Tempo C/FA/4676/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-K-2110 was exonerated from the liability on the ground that the deceased was travelling in goods vehicle and in total 12 passengers were travelling in the said goods vehicle and the deceased was gratuitous passenger and further it is contended that incident took place due to self negligence of Truck driver and Tempo driver has not contributed in causing the accident. 11) 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 applicants. In the present case the accident occurred on 27.03.2014 and during that time the appellant – injured was playing DJ System and farming work and as per the Government approved minimum wages was Rs.5,400/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the injured is reassessed as Rs.5,400/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 18 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 is just and proper. However, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.5,400/- the same is required to be increased by 40% towards future prospect, therefore, 40% of Rs.5,400/- is equal to Rs.2,160/- which comes to total Rs.7,560/- and 1/3 amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.2,520/- and the net amount comes to C/FA/4676/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 Rs.5,040/-. In view of above the amount under the head of loss of earning and future prospect is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,040/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.10,88,640/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.2,82,240/- under the head of loss of earning and future prospects. 12) The learned Tribunal relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.1,50,000/- 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 are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e. Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,150/- towards funeral expenses). 13) 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 appellant no.1 being widow of the deceased is entitled for Rs.48,400/- as spousal consortium, appellant no.2 being mother of the deceased is entitled for Rs.48,400/- as filial consortium and the appellant no.3 being son of the deceased is entitled for Rs.48,400/- as parental consortium under 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/- each. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.25,200/- under the head of loss of consortium. Page 7 of 9 C/FA/4676/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 14) As discussed above, the appellants are entitled to get compensation computed as under: Heads Awarded by Tribunal Reassessed by this Court Loss of earning and future prospects Rs.8,06,400/- Rs.10,88,640/- including additional amount of Rs.2,82,240/- Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.1,45,200/- including additional amount of Rs.25,200/- 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/- Total compensation Rs.9,56,400/- Rs.12,70,140/- including total additional amount of Rs.3,13,740/- 15) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.9,56,400/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,13,740/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 16) Hence, present appeals are partly allowed. The common judgment and award dated 27.12.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra, in MAC Petition Nos.523 of 2014 and 549 of 2014 stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.3 – Insurance Company shall C/FA/4676/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 deposit said additional amount of Rs.3,13,740/- in MAC Petition No.523 of 2014 and Rs.1,25,834/- in MAC Petition No.549 of 2014 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. 17) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 18) 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 18/11/2025 18:14:45