IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1652 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔ ========================================================== RAJUBEN PAPPUBHAI AMBALIYA & ORS. Versus BALDEVBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SOLANKI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 13/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Anand in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.245 of 2017. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2016 at about 11:00 p.m. The deceased, Pappubhai, was walking on the left side of the Vataman–Tarapur Road near Fatepura Crossing, close to Shere-Punjab Hotel. At that time, Opponent No.1 came riding a motorcycle bearing Engine No. HA10ERGHC68814 and p. 2 Chassis No. MBLHA10CGGHC67996 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, and dashed against Pappubhai. As a result of the said accident, Pappubhai sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed thereto. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the evidence produced on record. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of the deceased on a notional basis. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered at least minimum wages which was prevailing in the year 20165. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded the proper compensation. Hence, the learned advocate for the appellant has prayed that the present appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents have strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It is submitted that in the claim petition, the claimant has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month; therefore, the question of considering minimum wages does not arise. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration the entire material on record and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court p. 3 and the present appeal may be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it is an undisputed and admitted fact that the accident occurred in the year 2016. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal includes the affidavit of chief examination at Exhibit-23, the F.I.R. at Exhibit-26, the panchnama of the place of offence at Exhibit-27, the panchnama of the dead body at Exhibit-28, the inquest panchnama at Exhibit-29, and the post-mortem report at Exhibit-32.. 7. It appears from the affidavit that at the time of the accident, the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, and the same fact was also brought out during cross-examination. However, at the time of the accident, the minimum wages were Rs.7,700/-. Irrespective of any proof of income, to award just and proper compensation, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2016. Considering the minimum wages of an unskilled worker ensures uniformity and justice, even if the claimants belong to economically weaker sections of society. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the minimum wages prevailing in 2016 ought to be taken into account while determining compensation. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.7,700/- for the purpose of awarding just and proper compensation. The learned Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income. Further, as the deceased was in the age group of 50 to 51 years, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport p. 4 Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier is 11, which was properly considered by the Tribunal. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 68, the Tribunal has correctly considered 10% towards future prospects. 8. Therefore, by adding 10% (Rs.770/-) towards future prospects, the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.8,470/-. As there are four claimants, in view of the settled principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), one-fourth of the income, i.e., Rs.2,117/-, is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the monthly loss of dependency amounts to Rs.6,353/- (Rs.8,470 – Rs.2,117). 9. Considering that the deceased was in the relevant age group at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is “11” as per Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,38,596/- (Rs.6,353 × 12 × 11). 10. As regards the conventional heads, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is required to be enhanced to Rs.1,92,800/- (Rs.48,200 × 4), as there are four claimants. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, which is required to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/-, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is also required to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/-. 11. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.1,92,800/- towards loss of consortium, p. 5 and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral and transportation expenses. 12. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,38,596/- towards loss of future income. Upon adding the compensation under the conventional heads, the total amount comes to: Sr. No. Nature of heads Amount 1 Future loss of income Rs.8,38,596/- 2 Loss of Consortium Rs.48,200x4= Rs.1,92,800/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total Rs.10,67,696/- 13. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,42,096/- (Rs.10,67,696 – Rs.6,25,600) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. 14. It is needless to say that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families and there is no bar that compensation is restricted up to the claim by the claimant and the High Court and Tribunal have to award the compensation up to that extent. In this regard reference is required to be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274, p. 6 wherein, it has been observed that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,67,696/- from Rs.6,25,600. Respondent – Insurance Company shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.4,42,096/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, as per the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Application (for condonation of delay) No. 1825 of 2024, the Court has observed that no interest shall be paid for the delay of 405 days in preferring the present First Appeal. Therefore, interest for the said period of 405 days is directed to be deducted. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 16. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 17. Award to be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI