IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3928 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

BHARATBHAI GELABHAI @ GHELABHAI GAMARA Versus HEIRS OF DECD. RANJANBEN JAYENDRABHAI GAMARA ARJUNBHAI JAYENDRABHAI GAMAR & ORS.

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

Appearance:

NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR ANKITKUMAR B PATEL(9939) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4 MR KETANKUMAR V PATEL(11166) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4 MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 03/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.889 of 2016.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 15.08.2015, deceased, along with others, were travelling in Motor Car No. GJ-3ER- 5316. When they reached near the place of accident, suddenly a cow emerged on the road and while trying to save the cow, the said Motor Car No. GJ-3ER-5316 dashed with another Motor Car No. GJ-1KD- 6171, as a result of which the accident took place. In the said accident, deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

4. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not properly considering the evidence produced on record. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased on a notional basis. Even under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation, which is required to be enhanced. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation. Hence, the learned advocate for the appellant has prayed that the present appeal be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents have strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration the entire material on record and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeal may be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in light of the decisions in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635

7. Since the challenge in the present appeal is confined only to the quantum of compensation, the matter is required to be examined within a limited scope.

8. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2015. At the relevant time, it is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was 81 years of age and was earning Rs.2,34,000/- per annum by working in a gas agency. In support of the said contention, the claimant has produced on record the Income Tax Return of the deceased at Exhibit-63. However, the learned Tribunal doubted the said document on the ground that the gas agency was being run by a relative of the deceased and, therefore, the income reflected in the Income Tax Return could not be relied upon. On such premise, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs.8,000/- per month. It is needless to state that an Income Tax Return is a statutory document, and it is importan