Diptiben Rajendrabha Bhatt V. Kishorbhaik Bhikhabhai Patel and ANR

FA/4442/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the claimants against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision, which awarded Rs.4,42,480 for the death of Rajendrabhai Amrutbhai Bhatt in a motor vehicle accident. The appellants contested the inadequate compensation, arguing that the deceased's income was underreported and future prospects were not adequately considered. The respondents defended the Tribunal's decision, asserting that the compensation was just and based on available evidence. The High Court of Gujarat, after reviewing the evidence and applicable legal precedents, found merit in the appellants' arguments and revised the compensation amount significantly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833161 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. UP State Road Transport Corporation, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, Malviji v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nidhi Bhargav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Sayar v. Ram Karan
• Laws Referred To: Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DHAIRYAWAN BHATT; MOULESH VYAS; DIXA PANDYA
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHSIN HAKIM
• Keywords: Compensation; Future prospects; Income Assessment; Motor Accident; Multiplier method; Negligence
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

"C/FA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4442 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== DIPTIBEN RAJENDRABHAI BHATT (LHS-LRS OF LATE RAJENDRABHAI AMRUTBHAI BHATT) & ORS. Versus KISHORBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 MR. MOULESH A VYAS(17275) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 Ms. DIXA U PANDYA(9412) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 30/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–claimant against the judgment and award dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.149 of 2019. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 3. The brief facts of the present case are that On 22.11.2018, Rajendrabhai Amrutbhai Bhatt (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was travelling in a motorcar bearing Registration No. GJ-06-HL-8333, driven by opponent No.1. While proceeding on Petlad–Khambhat Road near the outskirts of village Jogan at Page 1 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com C/FA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026 about 01:00 hours, the said motorcar, being driven at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed from behind into a camel-cart loaded with eucalyptus wood. As a result, the deceased, the driver of the motorcar, and another occupant travelling in the rear seat sustained serious injuries. The deceased was immediately shifted to Shree Krushna Hospital, Karamsad, where he was declared dead. The incident was reported to Petlad Town Police Station and was registered as I-C.R. No.37 of 2018 against the driver of the motorcar. 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. Learned advocate submitted that the impugned judgment and award is illegal, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the evidence on record as well as settled principles of law. It was urged that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.4,42,480/- against the claim of Rs.24,69,555/-. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,83,644/- per annum, despite Income-tax Returns produced at Exhibits 32, 33 and 34 showing an income of Rs.4,49,301/- per annum from construction work and consultancy, which ought to have been accepted. It was contended that the learned Tribunal erred in ignoring income from other sources reflected in the Income-tax Returns and in granting only 10% towards future prospects, which is contrary to settled law. Learned advocate further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.1,45,200/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.36,300/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, and in applying a Page 2 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com C/FA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026 multiplier of 11. It was lastly submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% only. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of the accident and was engaged in the business of construction and consultancy. The learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, reported in AIR 2023 SC 44, and Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. UP State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2018 SC 819, and submitted that all monetary benefits received by the deceased are required to be taken into consideration while computing compensation. It was therefore urged that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has 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. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while assessing the average income of the deceased in the absence of cogent evidence. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly relied upon the testimony of the widow, wherein she admitted that certain income from other sources continued to accrue even after the demise of the deceased. It was also contended that the Income-tax Returns were filed on the basis of presumptive income under Section 44AD of the Income- tax Act and that only photocopies were produced, wherein the net profit was not clearly reflected. It was submitted that for the purpose of awarding compensation, only the net income is Page 3 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com C/FA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026 required to be taken into consideration and, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed no error in assessing the average income. It was further submitted that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the learned Tribunal had also correctly added future prospects. Therefore, it was urged that this Court may not interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It was further submitted that the impugned judgment and award has been passed after considering the entire material on record and, hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the appeal has been filed only on the ground of quantum, as the issues of involvement, coverage and liability are not in dispute; therefore, the appeal is required to be decided within a narrow compass. 7. In order to substantiate the claim, claimant No.1 filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief at Exhibit 34. To prove the income of the deceased, the PAN card was produced at Exhibit 29, the Diploma Certificate in Civil Engineering at Exhibit 31, and photocopies of the Income-tax Returns for the assessment years 2016–17, 2017–18 and 2018–19 were produced at Exhibits 32 to 34. It further appears from the record that the deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident. The School Leaving Certificate produced at Exhibit 28 reflects his date of birth as 24.06.1963, whereas the accident Page 4 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com C/FA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026 occurred on 12.11.2018. On the date of the accident, the deceased was aged about 55 years and 4 months; therefore, a multiplier of 11 is required to be applied. The learned Tribunal has also applied the same multiplier in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, which does not call for any interference. 8. As per the pleadings, the claimants contended that the deceased had completed a Diploma course in Civil Engineering and was engaged in the business of construction, earning about Rs.5 lakh per annum. In support thereof, Income-tax Returns for the assessment years 2016–17, 2017–18 and 2018–19 were produced at Exhibits 32 to 34. The learned advocate for the appellants argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income for the assessment year 2018–19 at Rs.4,49,301/-. 9. It is, however, undisputed that all the Income-tax Returns were filed under Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, which provides for a presumptive taxation scheme, and that no detailed computation of actual net profit was disclosed. In this background, the learned Tribunal considered the average income in light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhavnaben Shaileshbhai Rank v. Mahmadkhan Mahmadjalaludin Pathan (First Appeal No.3508 of 2021) and assessed the income at Rs.2,83,644/- per annum. 10. It is true that Income-tax Returns are statutory documents Page 5 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com C/FA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026 and deserve due consideration, as held in Anjali (supra), Vijay Kumar Rastogi (supra) and Malviji v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2020 SCJ 526. Upon perusal of the record, however, it appears that the returns were filed on a presumptive basis and, in cross-examination, the witness admitted that for the year 2018–19 the presumptive income was Rs.3,75,500/- and that no invoices or corroborative documentary evidence were produced. From Exhibit 34, it further emerges that in the profit and loss account a loss of Rs.1,25,449/- was shown, while the net profit for the year was disclosed as Rs.3,75,500/-. Though the returns were filed prior to the accident and show consistency, the Court is required to make a fair assessment considering the nature of business, educational qualification and social status of the deceased, as also held in Nidhi Bhargav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 872 and Sayar v. Ram Karan, SLP (Civil) No.24501 of 2025. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that, for the purpose of awarding just compensation, the annual income of the deceased is required to be assessed at Rs.3,75,500/- on the basis of presumptive net profit. Accordingly, the contention of the appellants to take the income at Rs.4,49,301/- is not accepted. 12. So far as future prospects are concerned, as the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident, an addition of 10% is required to be made in view of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the annual income would Page 6 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com C/FA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026 come to Rs.4,13,050/- (Rs.3,75,500 + Rs.37,550). 13. Considering that the deceased had three dependents, deduction of one-third towards personal expenses is appropriate, and the resultant annual dependency would come to Rs.2,75,367/-, which appears to be just and proper. Applying the multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.30,29,037/- (Rs.2,75,367 × 11). 14. Under the conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,45,200/- towards loss of consortium, which appear to be just and proper and therefore do not call for any interference. 15. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,29,037/- towards loss of dependency. Upon adding the compensation awarded under the conventional heads, the total compensation would come to: Sr. No. Nature of heads Amount 1 Future loss of income Rs.30,29,037 /- 2 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,45,200 3 Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 5 Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total Rs.32,10,537/- Page 7 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com C/FA/4442/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026 16. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified, and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.32,10,537/- from Rs.24,69,555/-. The respondent– Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs.7,40,982/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The record and proceedings shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 17. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 18. Award to be drawn accordingly. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 8 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/02/2026 11:43:07 "