Gujarat High Court
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bhagvanbhai Rayamalbhai Jadav on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/467/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 467 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
BHAGVANBHAI RAYAMALBHAI JADAV & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned advocate for the appellant - original opponent - insurance company. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate has entered his appearance on behalf of the respondents - original claimants.
2. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the insurance company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:29:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/467/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined and award dated 8th October, 2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), 10 th Addl. District Judge & Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Motor Accident Claims Petition no.446 of 2016. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present respondents - original claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. The claimants are held entitled to the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.18,74,000/- to be realized jointly and severally from the opponent nos.1 and 2 with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The owner of the motorcycle - opponent no.3 has been exonerated from the aforesaid liability.
3. This Court, noticing the limited challenge raised by the appellant - insurance company vide order dated 6 th March, 2025 has issued notice for final disposal and in the meanwhile had directed the insurance company to deposit the entire awarded amount before the concerned Tribunal subject to deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Court had stayed the impugned judgment and award pending this appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company has drawn my attention to the erroneous findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while deciding the issue of dependency loss. Learned advocate had pointed-out that the Tribunal has committed gross error in applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transportation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 in the facts of the present Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:29:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/467/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined case. Learned advocate, while referring to the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, has pointed-out that the Court has categorically held that in case of the deceased bachelor, 50% of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses, which the deceased might have incurred during his life time. However, the Tribunal has proceeded to consider deduction to the extent of 1/3rd only.
4.1 Learned advocate had further invited my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal and submitted that the deceased was survived by both the parents and therefore considering the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the mother being considered dependent, the Court has considered 50% to be deducted towards personal and living expenses to the bachelor and 50% of the remaining amount towards the contribution to the family. He had further invited my attention to the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein 1/3 rd deduction is to be taken into consideration in case where the deceased was survived by the widow mother and where family consisted of large number of members including the younger non-earning sister or brothers. He has therefore urged this Court to apply 1/2 deduction for personal expenses of the deceased and to modify the impugned judgment and award accordingly.
5. Learned advocate for the respondents - original claimants had mainly relied upon the findings and reasons Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:29:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/467/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined assigned by the Tribunal. According to the learned advocate, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the legal principles in the facts of the case and rightly arrived at a conclusion by applying 1/3rd deduction. He has therefore submitted that the present appeal may not be entertained and is required to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal in light of the legal principles of the Hon'be Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), this Court is of the view that while considering the issue of deduction, the same is required to be appreciated in light of the facts of each case.
7. Having considered the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was survived by both the parents. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged around 27 years at the time of accident and looking to the age of both the parents, the father who was in the prime age of early 50 years, it can be presumed that he was independent of the income of the deceased. Noticing the aforesaid fact, it can be presumed that at the most mother can be considered to be a dependent on the income of the deceased son. Thus, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), this Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid defence raised by the appellant - insurance company. The appeal is therefore allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 8 th October, 2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:29:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/467/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined (Special), Rajkot in MACP no.446 of 2016 is hereby modified. The amount of compensation towards future prospective income is considered as under :-
→ Rs.9,150/- x 1.4 (40%) future prospective income = Rs.12,810/-.
→ Rs.12,810/- - Rs.6,405/- (½ deduction for personal expenses of the deceased) = Rs.6,405/-.
→ Rs.6,405/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.13,06,620/-.
While adding the amount of Rs.18,000/- towards loss to the estate, Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.96,000/- towards consortium to the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,06,620/-, it comes to Rs.14,38,620/-. The total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.18,74,000/-. Hence, the differential amount comes to Rs.4,35,380/- (Rs.18,74,000/- - Rs.14,38,620/-).
8. At this stage, learned advocate for the appellant has invited my attention to the order dated 25 th June, 2025 passed by this Court in Civil Application preferred by the respondents
- original claimants seeking withdrawal/disbursement of the deposited awarded amount. By referring to the aforesaid order, learned advocate has urged this Court to issue appropriate directions to the Tribunal concerned to refund the amount reduced by this Court by this order.
9. Learned advocate for the respondents - original claimants has submitted that they have still not applied before the Tribunal for release of the 30% of the awarded amount as Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:29:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/467/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined directed by this Court in its order dated 25th June, 2025.
10. Considering the fact that the appeal has been allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.18,74,000/- is reduced to Rs.14,38,620/- by this Court, the differential amount of Rs.4,35,380/- is directed to be refunded to the appellant - insurance company.
11. Noticing the fact that the respondents - original claimants have still not applied before the Tribunal for release of the 30% of the awarded amount as directed by this Court in its order dated 25th June, 2025, the Tribunal is directed to release the remaining amount in favour of the respondents - original claimants after due verification.
12. With these observations, present appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...
Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:29:34 IST 2025