Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Chaudhary Kokilaben Sureshchandra on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3626 of 2011
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 158 of 2012
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3626 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
Versus
CHAUDHARY KOKILABEN SURESHCHANDRA, & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS DHARA M SHAH(5546) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal and cross objection have been filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fastrack Court No.1, at Surendranagar in M.A.C.P. No. 449 of 1993, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 11,34,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition until its realization, as compensation.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:24 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the instant appeal are summarized as under:-
i. On 11.01.1993, Mr. Sureshchandra (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was travelling on National Highway No.8-A by driving Fiat car bearing Registration No. GJ-2-A-1718. When he reached near the village Jakhan, the said car dashed with the backside of a truck bearing Registration no. GRN-4655, which was in a stationary (parked) condition. In the said accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and consequently succumbed to those injuries.
ii. It is also the case of the Original Claimants that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years and he was gainfully engaged in the occupation of business and agriculture work and thereby earning a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from both the sources of income. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased filed the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.
iii. Having been served the Notices/summons of the Claim Petition, the appellant-Insurance Company filed its Written Statement at Exh. 11, wherein it denied the averments made in the Claim Petition Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined and also disputed the age, income, factum and manner of occurrence of accident and in brief, the Insurance Company prayed for the dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.20:-
i. Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident ?
ii. What amount of claim is entitled by way of compensation from which of the opponents ?
iii. What order?
v. Having considered the material on record and considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 16,20,000/- as compensation, and thereafter deducted 30% of the awarded amount on account of the negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal awarded net amount of compensation of Rs.11,34,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined the date of filing the Claim Petition until its realization, as compensation.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant- Insurance Company have preferred the captioned appeal, thereby challenging the award on the ground of quantum, while the original claimants have preferred the Cross Objections in the Captioned Appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at higher side. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased as Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. He contended that the income of the deceased is at very higher side, therefore, the same is required to decreased considering the date of accident. He further submitted that the accident occurred in the year 1993. Therefore the learned Tribunal in year 1993 determined the income as Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, which is at very higher side. He further submitted that the award is required too be modified to that extend.
Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:24 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
5. On the other hand, Ms. Dhara Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Original Claimants vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. She contended that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd on account of the personal expenses of the deceased from the annual income of the deceased. She further submitted that the deceased is survived by 5 legal representatives, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th of the annual income on account of personal expenses of the deceased. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded the meagre amounts under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium, therefore the same is required to be enhanced in accordance to the ratio of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Relying upon the ratio of above judgments, learned counsel for the original claimants submitted that the considering the facts and circumstances, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be enhanced.
6. Having perused the material available on record, and in view of the broad consensus between the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined negligence, and the same is accordingly upheld. Further, it is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the decease about 38 years and he was engaged in the occupation of business as well as agriculture work. It was pleaded by the Original Claimants that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,50,000/-, but however considering the evidence on record, it prima facie appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the income at very higher side and therefore, the income is now reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Further, in view of the ratio of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104, 10% of the income is deducted on account of Income Tax, therefore, the net annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.90,000/- per annum.
7. It is on record that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased, therefore, 40% of the annual income is required to be added to the annual income on account of future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, after adding 40% to the notional income of the deceased, the annual income of the deceased would come to the tune of Rs.1,26,000/- (i.e. Rs.90,000/- + 40% of Rs.90,000/-).
8. Further, it is on record that the deceased was survived by 5 legal representatives, however the learned Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd on account of the personal expenses of Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined the deceased. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), only 1/4th of the annual income is required to be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, after deducting, 1/4th on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income for calculating the loss of dependency would come to Rs. Rs.94,500/- (i.e., Rs.1,26,000/- - 1/4th of Rs.1,26,000/-).
9. It is undisputed fact that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of "15". However, in place of multiplier of "15", the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of "16". Therefore, after applying the multiplier of "15", the loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,17,500/- (i.e., Rs.94,500 X multiplier of "15").
10. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. The same is required to be enhanced in view of the judgment of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram.(supra). Therefore, a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded under each of the heads, namely, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses .
11. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, considering the legal representatives left behind by the deceaed, a sum of Rs.1,45,200/- is awarded under the head of Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined loss of consortium.
12. Therefore, in view the above discussions, the Original Claimants shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount
No. (in rupees.)
1. Loss of dependency 14,17,500/-
2. Loss of consortium (+) 1,45,200/-
3. Funeral Expenses (+) 18,150/-
4. Loss of Estate (+) 18,150/-
5. Total Compensation 15,99,000/-
13. After deducting 30% on account of negligence of the deceased, the total compensation comes to the tune of Rs.11,19,300/- (i.e., Rs.15,99,000/- - 30% of 15,99,000/-). The learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 19.07.2010 has awarded Rs.11,34,000/- as compensation after 30% on account of the self negligence of the deceased. Therefore, a meagre difference of 14,700/- is required to be refunded to the appellant - Insurance Company. However, considering the smallness of amount, I deem it fit not to interfere with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
14. Therefore in view of the discussions, the impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2010 is modified to the above extent and the compensation is maintained. With the above observations, the Captioned Appeal and Cross Objection No. 158 of 2012 stand disposed of.
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:24 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
15. If any amount is lying deposited in the caption appeal with the Registry of this Court, the same may be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned. Records and Proceedings, if any, be sent to the concerned learned Tribunal. No order as to costs.
16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:24 IST 2025