Reserved On : 17/11/2025 Pronounced On : 17/11/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1276 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

DUNGARBHAI NATHUBHAI SAGATHIYA & ORS.

Versus BHUPATBHAI PREMJIBHAI CHUDASAMA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal arises from judgment and award dated 12th August, 2014 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 528 of 2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Auxiliary), Bhavnagar.

2. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal was pleased to award a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- from all the opponents, jointly and severely together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this Claim petition till claimants along with proportionate cost of the application.

3. As per the claim petition, the deceased, minor Dharmesh Dungarbhai Sagathiya, (hereinafter, “the deceased”) was studying at Trapaj in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in 10th standard. He suffered a vehicular accident on 08.07.2006 at 5’o clock in the evening. It appears that when he was out of his hostel, he was run over by a mini luxury bus, which was being driven by Respondent No.1.

4. The challenge to the said judgment and award is only on the ground of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Learned advocate Shri Hiren M. Modi appearing for the appellant has stated that irrespective of the manner of award of compensation, a bare perusal on certain reported judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that of this Hon’ble High Court, the compensation liable to be awarded would be Rs. 5,00,000/- as against Rs.2,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. For buttering the said contention, he relied on the judgment in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto reported at (2023) 1 SCC 204 and a subsequent judgment of this Court in R/First Appeal No. 2033/2017, wherein the said judgment of Meena Devi (supra) has been referred to. Relying on Meena Devi (supra), it was submitted that in the said case, compensation payable to minor has been dealt with. It was submitted that in terms of the said judgment, the notional income as prescribed in Schedule-II of M.V. Act has been deemed to be insufficient on account of inflation and accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted the notional income as Rs.30,000/- and, thereafter, had proceeded to award compensation in aggregate of Rs.5,00,000/-, taking into account the applicable conventional heads as well. It is noteworthy that there, the age of the child was 12 years. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court also took into account the ratio in judgments of M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151, where too, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded in respect of each school-going student drowned in river, whilst travelling in a vehicle (bus).

6. Similarly, learned advocate submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also pleased to consider its decision in the case of Kishan Gopal versus Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 in deciding the case of Meena Devi (supra), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for a death of a 10 year old child. The learned Advocate for the appellant further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Meena Devi (supra) had referred to the decision in Nagappa versus Gurudayal Singh reported at (2003) 2 SCC 274, that the Tribunal has power to award an amount exceeding the amount claimed, if such compensation is “just” compensation. Ultimately, a sum of Rs.5,00,000 was also awarded in Meena Devi