Gujarat High Court
Mayadevi Ramniwas Prajapati vs Subhash Rajnarayan Yadav on 25 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2912/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2912 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MAYADEVI RAMNIWAS PRAJAPATI & ORS.
Versus
SUBHASH RAJNARAYAN YADAV & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
KRUPALI N BHATT(9455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 31.08.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux), Bhuj-Kachchh, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for
short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.302/2013, 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. Hemal Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants – original
Claimants and Ms. Krupali N. Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent
No.3. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The appeal is filed on the limited ground of quantum, and no issue
regarding liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Learned
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Feb 26 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 04 20:31:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2912/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
counsel for the appellants has mainly submitted that the Tribunal has
committed error in considering the income of the deceased as
Rs.16,000/- p.m. as the deceased was doing contract work of fitting of
tiles, marbles etc. in Welspun Company, Anjar and used to earn
Rs.2,50,000/- per annum though income tax returns produced on
record. Further, the Tribunal has also not awarded adequate
compensation under other conventional heads also. He has prayed to
allow the appeal as prayed for.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the present
appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the
documents produced on record and assessed income. The Tribunal
has also examined the income tax returns for the A.Y. 2013-14 and
assessed income of the deceased as Rs.16,000 p.m, which is just and
proper. It is further contended that the compensation granted under
other conventional heads are also proper and do not require any
interference. Hence, she has prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
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 in
dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to
prove the claim, the claimant No.2 has filed an Affidavit at Exh:32,
evidence of witness Dhirendra Suxena at Exh:36, evidence of Nandlal
Prajapati at Exh:48, FIR at Exh:48, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:49, PM
report at Exh:54, Income Tax return for A.Y. at Exh:56, statement of
income at Exh:57, PAN card of the deceased at Exh:58. 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
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Feb 26 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 04 20:31:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2912/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635. Further, the
age of the deceased is 38 years as per the PAN card at Exh:58.
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. But in the present case,
the accident occurred in the year 2013 and during that time, the
deceased was working as a contractor of tiles fitting with the
Welspun Company and as claimed used to earn Rs.2,50,000/- per
annum. In support of the same, the claimants have also examined
evidence of witness Dhirendra Saxena at Exh:36 and evidence of
Nandlal Prajapati at Exh:48 from which it reveals that the deceased
was working with Welspun Company for contract work of tiles fitting.
But perusing the income tax returns filed for the A.Y. 2013-14, it
reveals that the gross total income of the deceased has been shown
as Rs.2,17,236/-. Therefore, to that extent, the Tribunal has
committed error in assessing the income of the deceased as
Rs.16,000/- per month.
7. This Court is of considered view that there is no rule in all cases that
Court has to consider average income. There is no any gradually
increase in the income and there is no bar to consider the last return
which is already inspired confidence and was filed prior to the
accident. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India
Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in 2020 ACJ 526 (SC),
wherein it has been held that income-tax returns are statutory
documents and the income of the deceased ought to be considered
as per the ITRs. Once the Tribunal has accepted that increase in
income is but natural, question does not arise to refuse the income as
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Feb 26 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 04 20:31:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2912/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
per the latest income tax return filed. In this regard, reference is
required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nidhi Bhargava v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine 872, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 12 has observed and held as under :-
“12. Just because on the date of the accident i.e., 12.08.2008, the Return
for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 had not been filed, cannot
disadvantage the appellants, for the reason that the period for which the
Return is to be submitted covers the period starting 1 st of April, 2007 and
ending 31st March, 2008. Thus, for obvious reasons, the Return would be
only for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, and date of submission
would be post-31.03.2008. No income earned beyond 31.03.2008 would
reflect in the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. To
reject the Return on the sole ground of its submission after the date of
accident alone, in our considered view, cannot be legally sustained.
13. … In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338,
after taking note of, inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the ‘…Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is
a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as
per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially
forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with
making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position,
the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and
continuity in peoples’ lives in the future.”
8. Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- and
future prospect of 40% = Rs.7200/- which comes to Rs.25,200/- and
1/5th amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure
and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.5,040/- and the net
amount comes to Rs.20,160/-. In view of above, the amount under
the head of loss of future dependency is required to be reassessed
as Rs.20,160/- x 12 months x 15 multiplier = Rs.36,28,800/-.
Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.4,03,200/- under the head of future loss of dependency.
9. Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16)
SCC 680 has awarded total Rs.30,000/- under the two conventional
heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Feb 26 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 04 20:31:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2912/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-
towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants – original
claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6300/- (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 amount towards loss of
consortium is reassessed as Rs.3,38,800/- for 7 claimants.
11. As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled
to get compensation computed as under:-
Heads Awarded by the Reassessed by this
Tribunal Court
Future loss of dependency 32,25,600/- 36,28,800/-
Loss of Estate 15,000/- 18,150/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/- 18,150/-
Loss of consortium 40,000/- 3,38,800/-
Total compensation 32,95,600/- 40,03,900/-
12. As Rs.32,95,600/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
appellants – original claimants are entitled to get additional amount
of Rs.7,08,300/- (Rs.40,03,900/- – Rs.32,95,600/-) with proportionate
costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
13. Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 31.08.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux), Bhuj-Kachchh, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.302/2013
stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and
award remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.3 shall
deposit such additional amount of Rs.7,08,300/- along with interest
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Feb 26 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 04 20:31:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2912/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and
proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
14. The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees
on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly. Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Thu Feb 26 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 04 20:31:04 IST 2026