IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3449 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI ==========================================================

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

NARENDRASINH LAKHUBHA WAGHELA (DECEASED) & ORS.

Versus RANCHODBHAI KUKABHAI BHARWAD & ANR.

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

Appearance:

DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,2 KRUPALI N BHATT(9455) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 11/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 13.08.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) at Viramgam, Ahmedabad in MACP No.2122/1998, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,45,400/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The facts are not under challenge, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the same are not reproduced herein.

2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

3. Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was educated up to 12^th standard and he was working as a part-time accountant and thereby earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/- per month. He further submitted that the income could not be proved on record, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time as notified by the Government of Gujarat. He further submitted that though the deceased was aged about 17 years; however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 instead of 18. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation under the heads of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of estate. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

4. On the other hand, Krupali N. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company vehemently submitted that the income of the deceased was not proved on record, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income as Rs.1,200/- per month. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3 instead of 1/2 on account of personal expenses of the deceased. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, therefore, the captioned appeal deserves to be rejected. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the factum of accident, manner of occurrence of accident, age and dependency are not under challenge. The original claimants/appellants herein have challenged the impugned judgment and award only on the ground of quantum. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/- per month. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a part-time accountant and thereby, he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. Perusal of the record transpires that the income was not proved on record, therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages preval