Gujarat High Court
Sushilaben Wd/O Dharmendrasinh ... vs Pareshbhai Punjirambhai Patel on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2060 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SUSHILABEN WD/O DHARMENDRASINH BHUPATSINH PARMAR L.H. OF
LATE DHARMENDRASINH BHUPATSINH PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
PARESHBHAI PUNJIRAMBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR ANAL S SHAH(3988) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No. 147 of 2016, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,70,800/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition until its realization, as compensation from Respondent No. 1 herein, while the Respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company was exonerated from liability to pay the compensation.
Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the instant appeal are summarized as under:-
i. On 16.10.2015 at around 2:30 a.m., Mr. Dharmendrasinh Bhupatsinh Parmar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was travelling on a Dumper bearing Registration No. GJ-18-AX-6132, owned and driven by respondent no. 1, as a conductor. When they reached the highway road near the railway crossing of Village Ambav, due to the negligent driving of respondent no. 1, the said dumper collided with the rear portion of another dumper, which was in a stationary condition. In the said accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and consequently succumbed to those injuries.
ii. It is also the case of the appellants/original claimants that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a conductor on the dumper.
iii. The notices/summons of the Claim Petition were served on the respondents. Only respondent no. 2-Insurance Company filed its Written Statement at Exh. 11, wherein it denied the averments made in the Claim Petition and also disputed the Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined claimant's age, income, injuries, expenses etc. In brief, the Insurance Company prayed for the dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh. 38:-
i. Whether applicants prove that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident ?
ii. Whether the applicants are entitled to get compensation ? If yes, what amount and from whom ?
iii. What order and award?
v. The following oral as well as documentary evidences were perused by the learned Tribunal to decide the matter:-
Sr. Description of Documents Exhibit
No. No.
1 Affidavit of applicant - Bhupatsinh 13
2 Copy of Complaint. 15
3 Copy of panchnama of place of 16
incident.
4 Copy of inquest panchnama 17
5 Copy of R. C. Book of involved 18
vehicle Dumper
6 Copy of insurance policy of 19
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
involved vehicle Dumper
7 Copy of P.M. Note of deceased - 20
Dharmendrasinh
8 Affidavit of Sushilaben 21
Dharmendrasinh Parmar
9 Copy of Abated Summary 36
10 Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased - 29
Dharmendrasinh
vi. Having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidences and considering the
submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,70,800/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition until its realization, as compensation from Respondent No. 1 herein, while Respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the deceased was not having a driving license to work as a conductor on the dumper.
vii. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the
appellants/original claimants have preferred the captioned appeal, thereby challenging the exoneration of the Insurance Company, as well as Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/original claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in exonerating the respondent No.2-Insurance Company from satisfying the award on technical ground that the deceased was not having the license to work as a conductor. He further submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was employed as a conductor on the dumper and as such, no license of conductor is required for a dumper. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Sections 29 & 2(40) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submitted that the appellants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month. He further submitted that it is not in dispute that the income of the deceased could not be proved on record before the learned Tribunal, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident for determining the income of the deceased, which was Rs.6,968/- for such an unskilled worker as notified by the State Government of Gujarat. He further submitted that in the similar fact and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Minu Rout & Anr. vs Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. reported in 2013 ( 10) Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined SCC 695 wherein, the income was pleaded as Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the income of the driver as Rs.6,000/- by taking notice of the fact that at the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a driver. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporateion Vs. Pushpaben Bharatbhai Parmar w/o Deceased Bharatbhai & Ors., decided on 06.02.2025 (Neutral Citation:
2025:GUJHC:8402), wherein the coordinate bench of this High Court has considered the income at the rate of minimum wages on the date of accident, which was higher than that claimed by the claimant in the petition. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and submitted that the income of the deceased is required to be determined at Rs.6,968/- per month. He further submitted that so far as the enhancement on account of future prospects are concerned, the learned Tribunal has rightly enhanced the income of the deceased by 40% on account of the future prospective income of the deceased and rightly deducted 1/4th of the income on account of the personal expenses of the deceased and rightly applied the multiplier. He contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount under the head of loss of consortium. He submitted that the deceased left behind 5 legal representatives, i.e., his widow, 2 minor children, and parents. Therefore, compensation under the head of loss of consortium ought to have been awarded to all the 5 legal representatives of the deceased. He further Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses are also required to be enhanced by 10% for each block of three years in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Therefore, the judgment and award is required to be modified to that extent.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Anal S. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company very fairly conceded that in view of Sections 29 & 2(40) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, no license is required for a conductor engaged on a dumber, therefore, he fairly submitted that findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the aspect of liability is erroneous. However, on the point of quantum, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently submitted that in the claim Petition, the appellants/original claimants herein have pleaded that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month. He further submitted that the said income could not be proved before the learned Tribunal, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month. He further submitted that when the appellants themselves have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Court should not consider the minimum wages, which is higher than the amount which was pleaded by the appellants.
Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined Therefore, at the most, the Court can consider the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. He further submitted that so far as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium are concerned, the Court may award the compensation under these heads as per settled preposition of law in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (supra). He further contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award and contended that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it is to be noted that there is no dispute regarding the manner or occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle, age or occupation of the deceased. The main dispute is with regard to the income of the deceased and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the conventional heads. So far as the exoneration of respondent no.2-Insurance Company on the ground of not having a license to work as a conductor on the dumper is concerned, it has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel that no such license is required for a conductor engaged on a dumper in view of the Sections 29 & 2(40) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In my considered view, no license of conductor is required to a person who is engaged Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined as conductor on a dumber. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal in para no. 21 of the impugned judgment and award is erroneous and same is required to be set aside. As such, the exoneration of respondent no.2-Insurance Company from satisfying the award is set aside.
7. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month at the time of accident. It is the say of the learned counsel of the appellants that in the absence of any evidence on the point of income, the learned Tribunal could have considered the minimum wages for such an unskilled worker prevalent at the relevant point of time. At the relevant point of time, the rate of minimum wages for such an unskilled person as per the notification issued by the State Government of Gujarat was Rs.6,968/-, which is more than what is pleaded in the Claim Petition. In the Claim Petition, the appellants herein pleaded that the deceased was gainfully engaged as conductor on a dumper and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Minu Rout & Anr. vs Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. reported in 2013 ( 10) SCC 695, wherein an income of Rs.5,000/- was pleaded before the learned Tribunal, however, in paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- and observed as under:-
"The Tribunal ought to have taken the salary of the deceased driver at Rs.6,000/- by taking Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined judicial notice of the fact that the post of a driver is a skilled job. Though the claim of the appellants is Rs.5000/- as monthly salary of the deceased for the purpose of determining the loss of dependency, the actual entitlement of the salary of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.6000/- per month by the Tribunal for awarding just and reasonable compensation, which is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court............"
8. The similar issue came for consideration came for consideration before the coordinate bench of this High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporateion Vs. Pushpaben Bharatbhai Parmar w/o Deceased Bharatbhai & Ors., decided on 06.02.2025 (Neutral Citation:
2025:GUJHC:8402), wherein the Coordinate bench took the view that in the absence of any proof of income, the rate of minimum wages is required to be taken into consideration though which is higher than whatever was pleaded by the claimants in the Claim Petition. In paragraph 6.2 of the said judgment, the Coordinate Bench has observed as under:-
"6.2. Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the evidence of bonafide certificate produced at mark-18/2 which demonstrates that deceased has attended new efficiency first look clinic conducted by Microsoft in 2009 and he was having computer knowledge. Even if we ignore all these aspects and take rate of minimum wage on the day of accident, i.e. Rs.5180/- for skilled worker is notified by State Government. Thus, this Court fixes income of deceased at Rs.5,200/- per month for calculating loss of dependency and future loss.............."Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
9. Thus, in light of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has to award just compensation considering the benevolent objective of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Therefore, it would be just and proper if the income of the deceased is determined as Rs.6,968/- per month, which is the minimum wages for an unskilled worker at the time of accident and accordingly, the notional income of the deceased at the time of accident is determined as Rs.6,968/- per month for calculating the loss of dependency and future loss of income.
10. Further, the learned Tribunal has enhanced the monthly notional income by 40% on account of future prospects of the deceased as the deceased was aged below 40 years at the time of accident, in the light of ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC
680. Therefore, after adding 40% to the notional income of the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased would come to the tune of Rs.9,755/- (i.e. Rs.6,968/- + 40% of Rs.6,968/-) per month.
11. The deceased was survived by 5 legal representatives, therefore, 1/4th of the notional income is to be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, therefore, the notional monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.7,316/- (i.e., Rs.9,755/ - 1/4th of Rs.9,755/-) Therefore, the annual income for calculating the future loss of Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined dependency would come to the tune of Rs.87,792/- (i.e.,Rs.7,316 X 12).
12. It is not in dispute that the at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of "18". Therefore after applying the multiplier of "18". the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,80,256/- (i.e., Rs.87,792 X
18).
13. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.44,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. However, the deceased left behind 5 legal representatives, i.e., his widow, two minor children and parents. Therefore, each legal representative shall be entitled for the loss of consortium. Therefore, appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- (i.e., Rs.48,400 X 5) is awarded under the head of loss of consortium.
14. Further, the appellants are also entitled for 10% increase for each block of three years in the amount of compensation awarded under the heads of loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses in view of the ratio of judgments rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (supra). Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- under the head of loss of Estate and a sum of Rs.18,150/- under the head of funeral expenses.
Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
15. Therefore, in view the above discussions, the appellants shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount
No. (in rupees.)
1. Future loss of dependency 15,80,256/-
2. Loss of consortium (+) 2,42,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses (+) 18,150/-
4. Loss of Estate (+) 18,150/-
5. Total Compensation 18,58,556/-
6. Compensation awarded by
Impugned Judgment and (-) 8,70,800/-
Award dated 07.02.2018.
7. Enhanced amount of 9,87,756/-
compensation.
16. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and award dated 07.02.2018 has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,70,800/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the appellants herein shall be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.9,87,756/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Sixty Only). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The said rate of interest is maintained and therefore, the appellants herein are entitled to the same rate of interest on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
17. In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent and accordingly, Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2060/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined the captioned appeal stands allowed partly. All the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation.
18. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition till realization, within a period of six weeks from today with the learned Tribunal concerned. On depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the appellants/original claimants, after due verification, and after deducting Court fee, if any, as per Rules. It is further made clear in case of appellants who are minors, their share shall be invested in FDR till they attain the age of majority.
19. If any amount is lying deposited in the caption appeal with the Registry of this Court, the same may be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned. Records and Proceedings, if any, be sent to the concerned learned Tribunal. No order as to costs.
20. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 17 22:21:42 IST 2025