IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3511 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

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

MOTIBHAI REVJIBHAI LAKKADIYABHAI VASAVA & ORS.

Versus SHIYA SHARAN VISHWANATH SAHU & ORS.

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

Appearance:

NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 10/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(1) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29.10.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Narmada at Rajpipla, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.77 of 2017, the appellants –original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

(2) Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellants –

original Claimants. Ms. R.V.Acharya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has remained absent when the matter is called out.

Though served, none appears for rest of the respondents.

(3) It is the case of the claimants that on 27.05.2017, while the deceased Jayeshbhai along with his friend Ashish Vasava were returning from from village Dhoomkhal attending marriage and when they reached near Rambhava bus station, at that time, one Truck bearing No.MH- 18-Z-9567 came with full speed and in rash and negligent manner dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased to get compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,18,600/- along with cost and interest @ 9 % p.a.

(4) The appeal is filed on limited ground of quantum and no further issue qua liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Therefore, learned counsel for the claimant has mainly argued that, the Tribunal has erred in considering monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- on notional basis as he was shopkeeper and earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not adequately awarding amount under the loss of consortium as there were four dependents and other conventional heads. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

(5) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the appeal is filed only on the aspect of quantum and liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross-objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of quantum only. Alleged incident is not not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant has filed an Affidavit at Exh:21, FIR at Exh:24, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh:25, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:26 and PM report at Exh:27. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held the offending vehicle sole negligent relying on the decisions of the Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635. Further, the age of the deceased is 17 years as per the school leaving certificate Exh:34.

(6) 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 evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the