Gujarat High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim for Minor Deceased — Notional Income Fixed at Minimum Wage and Consortium Awarded to All Claimants. The court held that for a minor aged 14, notional income should be based on minimum wages, and each claimant is entitled to consortium under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Gujarat High Court
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Lalabhai Chelabhai Chauhan, father of the deceased minor Ravindra Lalabhai Chauhan, filed a First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP No.184 of 2020. The accident occurred on 30.01.2020 when the deceased, aged 14, was sitting on the lap of Sushilaben on a motorcycle driven by Lalabhai. An Ecco Car driven rashly by opponent no.1 hit the motorcycle from behind, causing fatal injuries. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased at a low amount and in not awarding consortium to each appellant. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the notional income of a minor should be based on the prevailing minimum wages for a skilled worker, as the minor would have started earning after attaining 14 years. The court also held that each claimant is entitled to consortium. The appeal was allowed, enhancing the compensation accordingly.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Compensation - Notional Income of Minor Deceased - Minimum Wages - The court held that for a minor deceased aged 14 years, notional income should be based on prevailing minimum wages for a skilled worker, not a lower amount, as the minor would have started earning after attaining working age. (Paras 4-6)

B) Motor Accident Compensation - Consortium - Each Claimant Entitled - The court held that each claimant is entitled to consortium under the head of loss of consortium, and the Tribunal erred in awarding consortium only to the father. (Para 7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing notional income of a minor deceased and in not awarding consortium to each appellant.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Compensation enhanced. Notional income fixed at minimum wage rate. Consortium awarded to each claimant.

Law Points

  • Notional income of minor deceased
  • Minimum wages as basis for income
  • Consortium to each claimant
  • Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (02) 485

R/First Appeal No. 2886 of 2025

2026-02-02

Hasmukh D. Suthar

Nishit A Bhalodi for Appellant, Masumi V Nanavaty and Vibhuti Nanavati for Respondent No.3

Lalabhai Chelabhai Chauhan

Virendrasinh Kundansinh Jadav & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

First Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Remedy Sought

Enhancement of compensation awarded by Tribunal.

Filing Reason

Dissatisfaction with Tribunal's award regarding notional income and consortium.

Previous Decisions

Tribunal partly allowed claim petition in MACP No.184 of 2020 on 01.05.2025.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing notional income of the minor deceased? Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding consortium to each appellant?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that notional income should be based on minimum wages as the deceased would have started earning after 14 years. Appellant argued that each claimant is entitled to consortium.

Ratio Decidendi

For a minor deceased, notional income should be based on prevailing minimum wages for a skilled worker. Each claimant is entitled to consortium.

Judgment Excerpts

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and award dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahals at Godhra... Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering notional income of the deceased...

Procedural History

The appellant filed MACP No.184 of 2020 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahals at Godhra, which was partly allowed on 01.05.2025. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal by State Financial Corporation Against Injunction Restraining Possession Under Section 29 of SFC Act. Statutory Right to Take Possession Cannot Be Injuncted Without Proof of Arbitrariness.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Financial Institution's Petition Under Section 31(1)(aa) of SFC Act for Enforcement of Mortgage Against Guarantors. The court held that the petition is maintainable against guarantors and not barred by limitation under Articl...