Gujarat High Court
Meenadevi Ajaysing Yadav vs Salad Sanbhai Amulbhai on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2248 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2338 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MEENADEVI AJAYSING YADAV & ORS.
Versus
SALAD SANBHAI AMULBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeals are filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 10.05.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Auxi.), City Civil & Sessions Court, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.260 of 2007, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,17,600/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined of the claim petition till realization.
2. The original claimants herein preferred the appeal being the First Appeal No.2248 of 2012, thereby challenging the impugned judgment and award on point of negligence as well as quantum. While the driver and owner of the another vehicle involved in the accident preferred the appeal being the First Appeal No.2338 of 2011 on the point of negligence and their liability to satisfy the award.
3. The succinct common facts leading to file the captioned appeals are that on 30.09.2006 at about 21:00 to 21:30 hours, the deceased was coming from Nadiad by driving the truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-5595 and when he reached near the highway after crossing the Kathlal Chokadi at about 22:30 hours, in the meantime the tyre of the said truck got burst and the said truck dashed with the another truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-6832 which was coming from the opposite direction i.e. from Ahmedabad to Kathlal Chokadi. In the said accident, Ajaysingh Yadav sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. The cleaner of the said truck lodged the FIR being the I C.R. No.173/2006 with Kathlal Police Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Station.
4. It is also the case of the original claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years and he was gainfully engaged in the driving of the truck and earning Rs.3,500/- per month apart from the other allowances. Therefore, the claimants have claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under the various heads.
5. On being served with the notices of the claim petition, the opponent No.1 and 2 before the learned Tribunal filed the written statement at Exh-29 stating therein that the claimants have no right to file the claim petition. They denied the age, income and negligence. It was also contended that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the claimant. Alternatively, they pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The original opponent No.3/respondent No.3 herein remained absent throught the proceedings. The respondent No.4 Insurance Company filed the written statement at Exh-17 contending therein that the claim petition is not maintainable and it denied the averments made in the claim petition in toto and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
6. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues at Exh-39.
"1. Whether the applicants prove that the deceased Ajaysingh Yadav died in an accident occurred on 30.09.2006 by rash and negligent driving of Truck No.GJ-1-AT-6832, driven by opponent No.1 and owned by the opponent No.2?
2. Whether the opponents prove that the deceased was also liable for contributory negligence ? If yes, to what extent?
3. What amount of compensation the applicants are entitled to get and from whom?
4. What order and award?"
7. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased himself negligent for causing the accident to the extent of 60% and the respondent No.1, the driver of the another truck was negligent to the extent of 40%. The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- and thereafter deducted the 60% of the said amount on account of the contributory negligence of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased himself negligent to the extent of 40% and the Insurance Company of the another truck was exonerated on the ground that the said truck was not having the valid permit at the time of accident. Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimants have preferred the First Appeal No.2248 of 2012 while the driver and owner of the another truck filed the First Appeal No.2338 of 2011.
9. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
10. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants/appellants herein, vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed the serious illegality in exonerating the Insurance Company of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-5595 on the ground that the deceased was himself negligent to the extent of 60% for causing the accident. He further submitted that the Insurance Company of the truck could have been held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. In support of his contention learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Full Court of Gujarat High Court in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) and others V/s Kandla Dock Labour Board, reported in 2021 ACJ 2262.
12. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the learned Tribunal has not rightly assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident. He submitted that it is undisputed fact that at the time of accident, the deceased was the driver by occupation. He further submitted that the original claimants/appellants herein pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month. But the said income could not be proved on record. He further submitted that in absence of proof of income, the learned Tribunal could have considered the income of the deceased equivalent to the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident which is much lesser than the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased though it is undisputed fact that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years, therefore the 40% of the monthly notional income ought to have been added to the monthly income on account of the future prospects of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount under the conventional heads, therefore, the award is required to be modified to that extent. Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
13. Ms. Disha Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant in First Appeal No.2338 of 2011 vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross illegality in appreciating the evidence on the point of negligence. He submitted that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the deceased. He further submitted that the opponent No.1/respondent No.1 herein stepped into witness box before the learned Tribunal and he proved that the accident was caused owing to the sole negligence of the deceased. He further submitted that not only this, the panchnama of place of accident clearly transpires that the it was head-on collusion the truck of the deceased came from the wrong side and hit the truck which was being driven by the respondent No.1-herein. He further submitted that the respondent No.1 cannot be held liable for causing the accident, therefore, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal is perverse and required to be modified.
14. Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4-Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of negligence. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined evidence on record and rightly held that the deceased himself negligent to the extent of 60%. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal is rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month as the income was not proved. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, hence, the present appeal deserves to be rejected.
15. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that in the accident, the two trucks i.e. truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-5595 and truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-AT-6832 are involved. At the time of accident, the truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-5595 was being driven by the deceased himself, while the truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-6832 was being driven by the respondent No.1-herein. Both the trucks were insured for the relevant period with the respondent No.4- Oriental Insurance Company Limited. So far as the issue regarding negligence is concerned, the claimant No.1/appellant No.1 herein filed the affidavit of examination-in-chief before the learned Tribunal at Exh-40. In the said affidavit, she deposed that the accident occurred owing to the reasons that the tyre of the truck which Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined was being driven by her husband got burst. She further deposed that the accident occurred owing to the negligence of respondent No.1, however, in her cross-examination she admitted that at the time of accident she was at home and therefore, she is not an eye-witness of the accident. Thus, in her own admission in the cross-examination as she was not an eye-witness of the accident, therefore, her oral evidence on the point of negligence has become irrelevant.
15.1 The FIR came to be lodged by the cleaner of the truck namely Mr. Vinay Kumar. The said FIR was proved at Exh-34. In the said FIR, he narrated that the tyre of the truck got burst and therefore it went on the right side and dashed with the truck was coming from the opposite direction. From the FIR it is evident that the truck which was under the control of the deceased went on wrong side and hit the truck which was coming from the opposite direction. Further, the panchnama at Exh-35 also corroborated the version of the complainant, the position of the truck as per the panchnama, is that the truck of the deceased was found on the middle of the road and while the another truck was found on the left side of the road. Both the trucks were damaged from the driver side. It is also to be noted that the Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined respondent No.1 also stepped into the witness box and he also corroborated the version that the accident occurred owing to the negligence of the deceased. In the light of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, it is evident that the deceased himself negligent for causing the accident. The learned Tribunal in Paragraph-10 at page-10 and 11 of the impugned judgment noted as under:-
"But, in the present case, both vehicles are trucks and it is established from the oral and documentary evidence that the accident took place due to bursting of the tyre of the truck of the deceased. In these circumstances, the negligence of the deceased is more than the opponent No.1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the negligence of the deceased is 60%. The opponent No.1, who has seen that the tyre of the truck which was coming from the opposite direction was burst and he is not taken preventive action to prevent the incident, hence, he is held negligence at the rate of 40%. Hence, I find issue No.1."
16. The said findings returned by the learned Tribunal is perverse and totally contradictory to the evidences on record. Hence, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable and therefore, the same is required to be reversed and accordingly, it is held that that accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the deceased himself.
17. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is stated in the Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was gainfully employed as a driver of the truck and earned Rs.3,500/- per month as a salary. The said income was not proved on record. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month from the occupation of the driver. In absence of proof of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. As per the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat, the minimum wages at the time of accident for skilled worker was Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.2,500/- per month. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal could have added the 40% of the notional income on account of future prospects of the deceased. But the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, considering the future prospects of the deceased, 40% of the notional income is added to the monthly income and income of the deceased would come to Rs.3500/- (Rs.2,500 + 40% x 2,500).
18. It is on record that the deceased was survived by four legal Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined representatives, therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Sarla Varma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 (06) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, ¼ of the income is required to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting the ¼ of the income, the net monthly income for calculating the future loss of income would come to Rs.2625/- (Rs.3500/- (less) ¼ x 3500).
19. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about the 35 years, therefore, in view of the ratio of judgment in the case of Sarla Varma(supra) and Pranay Shethi(supra), the multiplier of 16 is to be applied and accordingly after applying the multiplier of 16, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,04,000/- i.e. (2625 x 12 x 16).
20. It is on record that the deceased was survived by his widow, two minor son and his mother, however, the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. In view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Pranay Shethi(supra) and Magma Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 all the legal representatives are entitled for getting the compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs.48,400 x 4) is awarded under the head of loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal was awarded a meager amount of Rs.2,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of expectation of life and a sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of transportation charges. In view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Pranay Shethi(supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram(supra) the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.18,150/- under the head of loss of estate and a sum of Rs.18,150/- under the head of funeral expenses.
21. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the claimants shall be entitled for the following compensation under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future Loss of Dependency 5,04,000/-
Loss of consortium 1,93,600/-
Loss of estate 18,150/-
Funeral expenses 18,150/-
Total 7,33,900/-
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
Less: compensation already awarded 1,17,600/-
Enhancement 6,16,300/-
22. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- as a total compensation and thereafter deducting the 60% of the awarded amount on account of the negligence of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs.1,17,600/- along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% . Therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled for an additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.6,16,300/- Rs.7,33,900/- (less) Rs.1,17,600/-).
23. As observed above, the deceased was himself held negligent for causing the accident, therefore, the question of satisfaction of the award comes into the picture.
24. The said issue is no more res-integra and the same has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) (supra). In the said case, where the Insurance Company has accepted the additional premium for covering the risk of the driver, the Full Bench observed as under:-
Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined "In our opinion, by accepting additional premium, the Insurance Company indemnifies the owners for the paid Driver and/or conductor and the risk of Driver/Conductor is covered under it. Upon death or injury caused to the paid Driver and/or Conductor, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy such claim irrespective of the self negligence. Thus, the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya & Anr (Supra) lays down the correct law. Reference is thus, answered accordingly."
25. Coming to the case on hand, the claimants/appellants have proved the policy of insurance of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-5595 at Exh-53. After perusal of the policy, it transpires that the Insurance Company has accepted the premium of Rs.25/- under the head of Legal Liability Employee/Driver. Therefore, in view of the acceptance of the additional premium, the Insurance Company of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-AT-5595 which was being driven by the deceased himself shall be liable to pay the compensation in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) (supra).
26. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal stands allowed partly, the respondent No.1 and 2 are exonerated. However, the respondent No.3 and 4 are held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. The respondent No.4 Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2248/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Insurance Company shall deposit the awarded amount along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
27. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the original claimants, after deducting the deficit court fees, if any, and after due verification.
28. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.
29. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) CDP Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:39 IST 2025