IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2353 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

VINUBHAI BHIMSINH ZALA & ANR.

Versus BHANU SINGH TIKAM SINGH RAO & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MR NAGESH C SOOD(1928) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 MR RITESH B DAVE(2815) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(1) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.633/2023, 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. Hiren Modi, learned Advocate for the appellants – original Claimants, Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Nagesh c. Sood, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(3) It is the case of the claimants that on 23.08.2023, deceased was walking in the side of the road and when she reached at the place of accident, one Eicher Truck bearing No.GJ 01 JT 5008 came in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and succumbed to it. 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 Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,62,200/- along with cost and interest @ 7.5 %

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.7500/- on notional basis as he was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not properly awarding compensation under other conventional heads and therefore, the same are required to be enhanced. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

(5) Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 have jointly opposed the present appeal and contended that the Tribunal has not committed any error in considering income of the deceased and adequate compensation is awarded to the claimants. Hence, no interference is required by this Court.

(6) 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:12, FIR at Exh:21, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh:22, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:23 and PM report at Exh:16. 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 was 52 years at the time of accident as per the Aadhar card produced at Exh:15/1.

(7) 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 Trib