Gujarat High Court
Bashiranben Wd/O Ayubbhai Jibawa Malek vs Jeetbahadur Budhbahadur on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3047 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
BASHIRANBEN WD/O AYUBBHAI JIBAWA MALEK & ORS.
Versus
JEETBAHADUR BUDHBAHADUR & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 22.01.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Narmada at Rajpipla (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as “the Tribunal” for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.304 of 2015, the appellants – original claimants have
preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “the
Act” for short).
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 21:03:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. M. Hakim, for the appellants –
original Claimants and learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for
respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the original record and
proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 05.09.2015, the deceased
Ayubbhai Jibawa Malek (who shall hereinafter be referred to as
“deceased”) was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-06-BN-
5888, on which one Basiranben was pillion rider. When they
reached near CPC Company, Varna, the opponent no.1 was driving
Tanker bearing Reg. No.HR.55-T5849, owned by the opponent
no.2, in wrong side and in rash and negligent manner and dashed
the motorcycle from front side due to which the deceased was died.
Therefore, the appellants had filed MAC Petition seeking
compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the
evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellants – claimants has submitted that
the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the income
of the deceased and also erred in considering dependency as
despite the deceased was married the Tribunal deducted ½ and as
per service book the deceased was aged 55 years while the
Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 9 which is required to be 11 as
per age group of 51 to 55 years. He has further submitted that the
deceased was working as Switch Board Operator with Gujarat
Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, and as per the salary slip
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 21:03:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
of June 2015, he was earning Rs.41,577.26 paisa. Though the
learned Tribunal has committed error by considering only
Rs.37,821/- per month income. He has further submitted that the
deceased was having permanent job and therefore the Tribunal
erred in considering addition towards future prospectus. Hence, he
has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal
has considered amount of overtime which varies and conveniently
the claimant has produced the salary slip of June 2015, wherein,
his overtime is on higher side and prior to that earning Rs.1,000/-
to Rs.3,000/- as overtime amount. Hence, deduction towards
income tax, professional tax and WTR ought to have considered
and required to be deducted. Hence, he has requested to dismiss
the present appeal.
6) The factum of accident, involvement of vehicles, negligence and
liability are not in dispute and challenge is given only qua quantum,
hence, the appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass.
Perusing the document at Exhibit 40 salary slip wherein overtime
amount of Rs.3,066.78 is shown. though gross salary is mentioned
as Rs.41,577.26 paisa and there are deduction of income tax,
professional tax and WTR tax. Keeping in mind the variation in the
amount of overtime the learned Tribunal has considered the income
of the deceased as Rs.37,821/- per month, however, considering
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 21:03:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
the variation in the amount of overtime with a view to award just
compensation the income of the deceased is reassessed as
Rs.40,000/- per month.
7) Further, the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing the
age of the deceased as his date of birth is 01.06.1960 and the
accident took place on 05.09.2015, therefore, the age of the
deceased is required to be considered 55 years at the time of
accident. Accordingly, multiplier of 11 would be applied. Further, as
the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of accident and having
permanent job in GETCO, on the basis of which the learned Tribunal
has considered future prospective income as 15% which is just and
proper. Moreover, at the time of accident the deceased was married
and having three dependents but the learned Tribunal has
committed error by considering only ½ deduction, therefore, this
Court is of the view that 1/3 deduction is required to be considered
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC
121] .
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/-
and future prospect of 15% = Rs.6,000/- which comes to
Rs.46,000/- and 1/3 amount is required to be deducted towards
personal living expenses of the deceased which comes to
Rs.15,333/- and the net amount comes to Rs.30,667/-. In view of
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 21:03:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
above the amount under the head of loss of future income is
required to be reassessed as Rs.30,667/- x 12 x 11 =
Rs.40,48,044/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.16,99,359/- towards loss of future
income.
9) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported
in 2017 ACJ 2700, has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the three
conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount
is required to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants –
original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/-
(i.e. Rs.18,150/- – Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.18,150/- – Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral
expenses).
10) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram,
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao
Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company
Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned Tribunal
has committed error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium, however, in view of above judgments the appellant
no.1 – original claimant no.1 being wife of the deceased, only she is
entitled for Rs.48,400/- towards spousal consortium under the head
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 21:03:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of
consortium is reassessed as Rs.48,400/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 1).
Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of
Rs.8,400/- under the head of loss of consortium.
11) As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled
to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of future income Rs.23,48,685/- Rs.40,48,044/-
including additional
amount of Rs.16,99,359/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.48,400/-
including additional
amount of Rs.8,400/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 1)
Total compensation Rs.24,18,685/- Rs.41,32,744/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.17,14,059/-
12) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.24,18,685/-, however, as discussed above the appellants are
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.17,14,059/-
(Rs.41,32,744/- – Rs.24,18,685/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 21:03:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
13) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 22.01.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Narmada at Rajpipla, in MAC Petition No.304 of
2015 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment
and award remains unaltered. The respondent no.3 – Insurance
Company shall deposit the said additional amount of
Rs.17,14,059/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal,
before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to
the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
15) Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.
16) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Wed Feb 11 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 17 21:03:44 IST 2026
