Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Lh Of Decd Pravinsinh Gahnshyamsinh ... on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/413/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 413 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
LH OF DECD PRAVINSINH GAHNSHYAMSINH SODHA & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for
the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Present appeal has been filed by the appellant - original opponent no.3 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") against the common judgment and award dated 17.02.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Bhuj - Kachchh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.156 of 2014.
2) Heard Ms. D. A. Thaker, learned Advocate for the appellant - The
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/413/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Mr. R. P. Raval, learned Advocate for respondent no.5 - Magma HDI General insurance Co. Ltd., and Mr. Hemal Shah, learned Advocate for respondent nos.1.1 to 1.4 - original claimants.
3) It is the case of the original claimants that on 31.03.2014, the District Superintendent of Police (West), Bhuj has ordered for vehicle checking drive near Sheikpir to Bhachau Road. On that day the deceased - Pravinsinh Sodha (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") who was working as Police Constable standing opposite side of Hotel Mr. Idli for checking of vehicle. When the deceased was checking vehicles at that time Trailer bearing Reg. No.HR-55-D-8278 loaded with Charcoal came from Sheikhpir side hence the police had stopped the said Trailer for checking and ascertaining about details of Cargo etc., meanwhile Luxury Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-01-CX-7288 in which deceased Ajitsinh Premji Jadeja was cleaner was proceeding in full speed and the driver of luxury bus lost control over the steering and dashed with the rear portion of the Trailer and because of that Trialer came into mo0tion and deceased - Pravinsinh who was checking the documents of Trailer fell down and rear wheels of the trailer run over the deceased - Pravinsinh Sodha as a result of which deceased sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error while appreciating the documents on record. From bare perusal of the FIR and other documents it clearly Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/413/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined indicates that the driver of trailer has stationary stopped his trailer on the road on account of which luxury bus came from back side and dashed on the rear portion of the trailer which resulted in the accident. The said fact is also reflected in FIR, panchnama and if the driver of the trailer has not stopped his vehicle stationary then question does not arise of alleged untoward incident. At around 22:40 the accident was occurred and no evidence or material shows that the trailer was kept with indicator or reflectors for safety therefore the driver of the trailer is equally liable for the accident and hence she has requested to consider contributory negligence of the driver of the trailer as 50%. She has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering agriculture income of Rs.4,500/- in absence of any evidence being deceased was police constable and he was serving in remote place hence question does not arise to actively participate in agriculture activity and claimant no.1 after the year 2008-09, grandfather of the deceased and brothers were taking care of the agriculture land and were doing farming and admittedly the land is joint property. Hence, the Tribunal has committed error in considering agriculture income of Rs.4,500/- without any evidence. After appreciating evidence though findings are given but the deceased was not engaged in agriculture activity. Hence, she has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1.1 to 1.4, has opposed the present appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and the deceased was third party has nothing to do with the negligence and he has right to recover from any of the party. Further he has submitted that so far negligence part is concerned the Insurance Company has satisfied Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/413/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the award rendered in MAC Petition No.157 of 2014, hence, question of negligence does not require to be considered or reopen. Further he has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the agriculture income of the deceased as sufficient evidence is produced in the form of 7/12 and village form. Further, evidence of Talati-cum-Mantri at Exhibit 69 is also produced and claimants have examined one Anil jayantilal Thacker at Exhibit 55, for proving income of the deceased and invoice of Shivram Enterprise is also produced which reveals sell of agricultural products and generation of income. Merely as such the deceased was working in Police Constable, it does not mean that the deceased was not having any agriculture income. Even under the head of supervisory loss also the learned Tribunal has notionally considered income of Rs.4,500/-.
5.1) Further, he has relied on the judgment in case of Neeta Vs The Div. Manager, MSRTC, reported in (2015) ACJ 598; and United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Shilpa Jigishbhai @ Jignesh Vyas, reported in (2005) ACJ 1645, and K. Ramya and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 69934, and submitted that the Court must be liberal and not parsimonious in awarding the compensation and based on broad principle the income of the agriculture is also required to be considered to award just compensation and claimants are entitled to receive the income of the agriculture towards supervisory loss. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) Learned Advocate for the respondent no.5 Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has already made apportionment in ratio of 30% and 70% and decided the negligence and the appellant has already satisfied and Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/413/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined complied with another order rendered in the cognate matter therefore question does not arise to re-agitate the issue. As per the complaint the police was patrolling while vehicle was passing but abruptly the police had stopped the vehicle due to which driver of the trailer was compelled to stop the vehicle and alleged incident took place and driver of offending vehicle was supposed to maintain safe distance as per the Motor Vehicle Rule. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
7) Having heard the learned Advocates for respective parties, and going through the record so far negligence part is concerned it appears that in cognate matter MAC Petition No.157 of 2014 the Insurance Company has accepted the liability and also deposited and satisfied the award therefore question does not arise to discriminate both the claims and once the appellant has already confined with the negligence. Hence, this Court does not deem it fit to dealt with the arguments of negligence.
8) Insofar arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate that while calculating quantum the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering agriculture income of Rs.4,500/- notional in absence of any evidence. Perusing the record it appears that the claimants have tendered the evidence before the Tribunal and stated that the deceased having agricultural land and he was growing the crops and earning Rs.2 lacs per annum in support of that they have produced revenue records at Exhibits 67, 68 and 72. Perusing the record it appears that the said property is in joint name of Kanubha Banesangji Sodha, Ganpat Ghanshyamsinh Kanubha Sodha and deceased Pravinsinh Ghanshamsinh Kanubha Sodha. 8.1.) The claimant wife of the deceased has tendered her evidence and in Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/413/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined her cross-examination she has admitted that the deceased was working in Police Department and from the year 2008-09 Kanubhai grandfather in law of the deceased and brother of the deceased have been farming in the agriculture land and the land is in possession of the family members and brother of the deceased and they are cultivating the land. When estate belongs to the deceased and legal representatives of the deceased then as per the settled principle of law the Tribunal has to consider supervisory loss while awarding the compensation considering supervisory skill and managerial skill to manage the property on the part of the deceased. To prove the income of Rs.2 lacs per annum the evidence of Anil Jayantilal Thacker produced at Exhibit 55 and bills of selling crops at Exhibit 56. From the record it clearly reveals that property is in joint name and other three members are there and elder brother and grandfather were doing agriculture activity while the deceased was serving with Police Department and he was not actively participated or actively involved in the agriculture activity which reveals from the record.
8.2) While computing income from agriculture activity which always depends on rain, atmosphere and season and such activity carrying on by labourer also hence in view of New India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Charlie reported in 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC) the learned Tribunal has to consider only supervisory loss. The learned Tribunal has straightaway considered income of Rs.4,500/- but if we consider the income from selling crops is actually not the income of the crops but cost of growing crop, labour cost, fertilizer expenses and irrigation which are also required to be considered and after deducting the said expenses three other family members are there and if we consider the aforesaid of facts then it clearly reveals that considering aforesaid aspect and the deceased was working with Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/413/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Police Department and he was not actively participated in agriculture activity such finding is given by the learned Tribunal though the learned Tribunal has considered notional income as Rs.4,500/- which is required to be considered as Rs.2,500/-. 8.3) In view of above discussion, supervisory loss and active participation in agriculture activities by the deceased is not available on record and on the contrary after appreciating the evidence the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased was not active in agriculture activity and property belongs to joint family members and grandfather in-law and brother of the deceased were taking care of the said lands. Even after the death the property bequeathed or remains with legal representatives or claimants hence income remains continued, however, the claimants are entitled for supervisory or managerial loss qua said agricultural lands. If we consider the said aspect then learned Tribunal has committed error in considering notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month which is required to be Rs.2,500/- as supervisory loss. However, if we recalculate the amount under the head of loss of dependency it comes to Rs.35,27,568/- and the difference between above amount and amount awarded by Tribunal under loss of dependency would come approx. around Rs.3 lacs. 8.4) Hence, though the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering notional income but in view of object of the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation 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. Hence, keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and in view Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/413/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined of the case of K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338; S Vishnu Ganga v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 182 and Shivaleela and Ors., Vs The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 357, reassessed supervisory loss qua agriculture income and considering narrow margin in the awarded amount and considering smallness amount this Court is not incline to interfere or disturb the awarded amount of compensation.
9) In view of above discussion no interference is required with the judgment and award dated 17.02.2021, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Bhuj - Kachchh, in MAC Petition No.156 of 2014.
10) Record and proceedings (if any) be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
11) Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of in view of smallness of amount.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:45:38 IST 2025