Mahendrasinh Lazmansinh Chauhan & Anr vs Yogeshbhai Somnathbhai Ahire & Ors

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and award dated 17.03.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mahisagar at Lunawada (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2125 of 2017, the appellants – original claimants have preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).

2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, for the appellants – original Claimants and Mr. K. A. Parikh, learned Advocate for respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the original record and proceedings.

3) It is the case of the appellants that on 23.10.2012 the deceased Karansinh Mahendrasinh Chauhan (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased”) died in a vehicular accident by Indica Car bearing Reg. No.GJ-05-JA-2606 at near Village Signali on Godhra to Lunawada Highway Road. The offence was registered with Kothamba Police Station diary No.18/2012. Therefore, the appellants have filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition.

4) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by assessing notional income of the deceased. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal also erred in not awarding addition towards future prospectus and awarded meagre compensation. He has further submitted that inadequate amount is awarded under conventional heads. 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 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and no interference is required to call for. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

6) The appeal is filed on limited ground that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing quantum by not considering the income of the deceased who was 14 years old at the time of accident and considered only Rs.15,000/- per annum on notional basis. However, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and Anr, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation – 2025 INSC 1070, as per which the Hon’ble Supreme Court come to the conclusion and clarified that when the Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. Considering the aforesaid fact in the case on hand the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased child at Rs.15,000/- per annum and the Insurance Company is also failed to perform obligation and responsibility as party to point out applicable minimum wages endorsed by the Government. In view of above at the relevant point of time the rate as per minimum wages was Rs.5,020/-, hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.5,020/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not considering addition towards future prospectus, however, this Court is of the considered view that 40% addition towards future prospectus is required to be considered to award just compensation. Similarly, the learned Tribunal also erred in not considering any deduction, however, as the deceased was unmarried ½ deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is considered. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has also committed error in considering the multiplier of 15, which is required to be considered as multiplier of 18 to award just and proper compensation in light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700.

7) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.5,020/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.2,008/- which comes to to Rs.7,028/- and ½ amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,514/- and the net amount comes to Rs.3,514/-. In view of above the amount towards loss of dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.3,514/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,59,024/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.5,34,024/- towards loss of dependency.

8) Further, the learned Tribunal while relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.1,18,000/- 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 and Rs.48,400/- each to the appellants towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount under the three conventional heads is reassessed as Rs.1,33,100/-. Therefore, the appellant is are entitled for additional amount of Rs.15,100/- towards three conventional heads.

9) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation computed as under:

Heads

Awarded by Tribunal

Reassessed by this Court

Loss of dependency

Rs.2,25,000/-

Rs.7,59,024/-

including additional amount of Rs.5,34,024/-

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

88,000/- (Rs.44,000/- x 2)

Rs.96,800/-

including additional amount of Rs.8,800/-

Total compensation

Rs.3,43,000/-

Rs.8,92,124/-

including total additional amount of Rs.5,49,124/-

10) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,43,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.5,49,124/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

11) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 17.03.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mahisagar at Lunawada, in MAC Petition No.2125 of 2017 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.3 – Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.5,49,124/- 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.

12) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.

13) Award to be drawn accordingly.