Gujarat High Court Allows Appeal and Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Case Due to Incorrect Income Assessment and Multiplier. Tribunal's award set aside as it erroneously assessed deceased's income at Rs.3,000 per month instead of Rs.4,500 and applied multiplier of 5 instead of 18 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 88
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot, in MACP No.859 of 2017. The appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Muljibhai Chhaganbhai Vatukiya, filed the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation. The deceased, a labourer aged 30 years, died in a road accident on 29.09.2016 when the rickshaw he was traveling in overturned due to rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,15,000, which the appellants challenged as inadequate. The High Court heard Mr. N.A. Bhalodi for the appellants and Mr. A.N. Shah for the respondent Insurance Company. The court found that the Tribunal had erred in assessing the deceased's income at Rs.3,000 per month without any basis, and instead assessed it at Rs.4,500 per month based on the minimum wage schedule for a skilled labourer. The Tribunal had also applied a multiplier of 5, which was contrary to the settled principle in Sarla Verma v. DTC, where for a deceased aged 30 years, the multiplier should be 18. The deduction for personal expenses was reduced from 1/3rd to 1/4th as per the number of dependents (4). The court also enhanced the loss of consortium from Rs.40,000 to Rs.1,60,000 (Rs.40,000 x 4 dependents) following Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram. The funeral expenses and loss of estate were maintained at Rs.15,000 each. The total compensation was recalculated as follows: loss of dependency: Rs.4,500 x 12 x 18 x 3/4 = Rs.7,29,000; loss of consortium: Rs.1,60,000; funeral expenses: Rs.15,000; loss of estate: Rs.15,000; total Rs.9,19,000. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's award, and directed the Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Income Assessment - Deceased was a labourer aged 30 years - Tribunal assessed income at Rs.3,000 per month without any basis - High Court held that in absence of evidence, income should be assessed as per minimum wage schedule for skilled labourer at Rs.4,500 per month - Held that Tribunal's assessment was arbitrary and not based on any material (Paras 5-6).

B) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Age of Deceased - Deceased was 30 years old - Tribunal applied multiplier of 5 erroneously - High Court held that as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier for age group 26-30 is 18 - Held that Tribunal's application of multiplier 5 was perverse and contrary to settled law (Paras 7-8).

C) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - Deceased was married and had four dependents - Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses - High Court held that as per Sarla Verma, for 4-6 dependents, deduction should be 1/4th - Held that deduction of 1/3rd was erroneous and modified to 1/4th (Para 9).

D) Motor Accident Claims - Loss of Consortium - Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000 to wife only - High Court held that as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, each dependent is entitled to Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium - Held that appellants are entitled to Rs.1,60,000 (Rs.40,000 x 4) (Para 10).

E) Motor Accident Claims - Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate - Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000 for loss of estate - High Court held that as per Pranay Sethi, funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000 and loss of estate Rs.15,000 - Held that these amounts are just and proper (Para 11).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000 per month and in applying a multiplier of 5 instead of 18, and whether the compensation awarded under various heads is just and proper.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The judgment and award dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in MACP No.859 of 2017 is set aside. The appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,19,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.

Law Points

  • Income assessment based on minimum wage schedule
  • multiplier as per age of deceased
  • deduction for personal expenses
  • loss of consortium
  • funeral expenses
  • loss of estate
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 195

R/First Appeal No. 1204 of 2025

2026-01-08

Hasmukh D. Suthar

Nishit A Bhalodi for the Appellants, Alkesh N Shah for the Respondent No. 3

Bhanuben Muljibhai Vatukiya Bhanuben D/O Somabhai Chauhan & Ors.

Rameshbhai Somabhai Uteliya & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition for compensation arising out of a fatal road accident.

Remedy Sought

Appellants (original claimants) sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Filing Reason

Appellants were aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Previous Decisions

Tribunal awarded Rs.3,15,000 as compensation in MACP No.859 of 2017 vide judgment dated 29.07.2024.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000 per month? Whether the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 5 instead of 18? Whether the deduction for personal expenses should be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd? Whether the loss of consortium should be awarded to all dependents?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the Tribunal assessed income arbitrarily at Rs.3,000 per month without any basis and that the multiplier of 5 was contrary to Sarla Verma. Respondent Insurance Company supported the Tribunal's award.

Ratio Decidendi

In motor accident claims, the income of the deceased should be assessed based on minimum wage schedule in absence of evidence; multiplier should be as per age of deceased as per Sarla Verma; deduction for personal expenses depends on number of dependents; loss of consortium should be awarded to each dependent as per Magma General Insurance.

Judgment Excerpts

The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000 per month without any basis. In absence of any evidence, the income of the deceased is required to be assessed as per the minimum wage schedule. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 5, which is erroneous. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, for the age group of 26-30, the multiplier is 18. The deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4th as the deceased has four dependents.

Procedural History

The claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot as MACP No.859 of 2017. The Tribunal passed the award on 29.07.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the present First Appeal No.1204 of 2025 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 173, Section 166
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Appeal and Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Case Due to Incorrect Income Assessment and Multiplier. Tribunal's award set aside as it erroneously assessed deceased's income at Rs.3,000 per month instead of Rs.4,5...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal by Govt. of NCT Delhi in Special Education Teacher Recruitment Case — CTET Qualification with Relaxed Marks for OBC Outsiders Cannot Be Considered for General Category Vacancies. The Court held that candidates who obtain...