Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Digvijaysinh Ratilal Parmar on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2215/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2215 of 2023
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 3 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2215 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
DIGVIJAYSINH RATILAL PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA B GANDHI(13129) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS SHREYA M SONI(10618) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") is filed by the appellant - original opponent No.2 challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 18.11.2022 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Nadiad (for short "learned Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1144 of 2016, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs.41,80,348/- to the respondent No.1 - original claimant. Whereas the Cross Objection No.3 of 2024 in First Appeal No.2215 of 2023 is filed by the original claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:27:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2215/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal is as follows:
[2.1] On 07.08.2016, the original claimant was travelling in a car bearing No.GJ-07-R-5733 which was being driven by the friend of the original claimant on its correct side and at moderate speed and at around 11 p.m., when the said car reached the place of accident, at that time, Chhota Hathi bearing registration No.GJ-01-CZ-7919 being driven by original opponent No.1 in rash and negligent manner came on wrong side and dashed with the car in which the claimant was travelling pursuant to which the claimant sustained serious multiple injuries over his body. Therefore, the original claimant filed MACP No.1144/2016 seeking compensation.
[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the learned Tribunal held the driver of Chhota Hathi solely negligent for the accident and was pleased to award Rs.41,80,348/- to the original claimant. Hence, the appellant - insurance company has filed the present First Appeal challenging the decision of learned Tribunal holding the driver of Chhota Hathi to be solely negligent and also against the amount of compensation. The original claimant has filed the cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval appearing for the appellant - insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and committed an error in saddling the appellant - insurance company with 100% liability and has submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car in which the claimant was travelling as there was a head on collision between the two vehicles. Further, he has submitted that income of the claimant is assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.18,049/- without Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:27:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2215/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined deducting amount towards professional tax and hence, the amount of compensation is required to be sliced down to that extent. The learned Tribunal has also committed an error in awarding the compensation under other heads also. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
[4.0] Learned advocate Ms. Shreya Soni appearing for the original claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering 100% disablement of the original claimant and considered only 95% disability. Though the claimant is totally bed ridden and his earning capacity has been adversely affected by the said disability, learned Tribunal ought to have considered 100% disability as the claimant has been incapacitated due to the accident and disability sustained in the said accident. Further, she has submitted that future prospective income is required to be considered atleast at 50% and even under the heads of special diet, attendant charges, transportation and loss of amenities and pain, shock and suffering, meagre amount is awarded and claimant was unmarried at the time of accident and even the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards the marriage prospects. Hence, she has requested to allow the cross objection enhancing the compensation and dismiss the first appeal.
[5.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company and learned advocate for the original claimant and perusing the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence produced and adduced by both the parties including the affidavit of the claimant (Exh.31), who is examined by the Court Commissioner and Doctor (Exh.28), evidence of Shaileshbhai (Exh.41) and the fact that complaint (Exh.58) and charge-sheet is filed against Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:27:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2215/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Chhota Hathi, panchnama (Exh.59) and it appears that the insurance company of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. So far as negligence aspect is concerned, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, it is settled law that negligence is required to be proved in claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderence of probability and not beyond doubt and even as per the complaint (Exh.58), the driver of the car in which the claimant was travelling was eye-witness and he has stated that when he reached at the spot, at that time, driver of Chhota Hathi came on wrong side and dashed with the car and it was a head on collision. Considering the aforesaid fact as also the evidence of claimant, who is eye-witness, learned Tribunal has considered 100% negligence on the part of the driver of Chhota Hathi as he came from wrong side. Hence, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of Chhota Hathi was solely negligent for the accident. Even, the insurance company has not proved the said defence of contributory negligence and no any evidence of offending vehicle has been examiend and hence, merely because it is pleaded that the vehicle car was also negligent is not enough. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrikrishna Kanta Singh vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 394, driver of offending vehicle was not cautious enough to have avoided the accident and negligence of the driver of the car must be proved by the evidence with preponderence of probability as standard. In view of above, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the driver of Chhota Hathi to be 100% negligent and hence, argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company to Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:27:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2215/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined consider contributory negligence on the part of driver of car is not accepted and even otherwise, the original claimant is a third party, who has nothing to do with the contributory negligence and for the original claimant, case is of composite negligence.
[6.0] So far as argument canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company that the learned Tribunal has considered monthly income of claimant at Rs.18,049/- without deducting the amount towards professional tax is concerned, the evidence produced on record suggests that the claimant was doing private job with Vista Print Technology Pvt. Ltd. and due to accident, the claimant had to left the job. If we consider the professional tax at the rate of Rs.200/- per month, even though it would make a meager difference and no sizable amount is reduced or sliced down even considering Rs.200/- per month, it will come to Rs.2400/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has considered the annual income of the claimant at Rs.2,16,588/- (Rs.18,049 x 12) and as the claimant was aged 25 years 11 months and 23 days at the time of accident i.e. approximately 26 years of age, and hence in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier of 17 would apply. As the claimant was in private job having fix salary of Rs.18,049/-, 40% i.e. Rs.86,635/- towards future prospect is required to be added and thus, the amount comes to Rs.51,54,791/- by applying the multiplier of 17 (Rs.216588 + Rs.86,635 x 17). So far as disability is concerned, the disability certificate is produced at Exh.36 and Dr. Yogesh Parikh is examined at Exh.35 wherein he has stated that claimant is totally bed ridden and 100% disabled and hence, functional disability is required to be considered at 100%. Hence, towards future loss of income, the claimant is entitled to amount of Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:27:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2215/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined compensation of Rs.51,54,791/-.
[6.1] Further, the claimant remained under treatment for a period of six months and hence, he is entitled to Rs.18049 x 6 months = Rs.1,08,294/- under the head of actual loss of income which has been rightly awarded by the learned Tribunal. Even, the compensation under the head of medical expenses of Rs.1,98,400/- does not call for any interference. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering but considering the nature of injury and 100% disability and the fact that claimant is totally bed ridden, this Court deems it fit to award Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and under the head of special diet, attendant charges, transportation and loss of amenities, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be awarded as the claimant is totally bed ridden and would require attendant even for performing daily chores. The claimant was unmarried at the time of accident and therefore, under the head of marriage prospects, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.
[7.0] Thus, now the original claimant is entitled to the compensation as under:
Heads Amount Reassessed by
awarded by the this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.37,03,654/- Rs.51,54,791/-
Actual loss of income Rs.1,08,294/- Rs.1,08,294/-
Pain, shock and suffering Rs.75,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.1,98,400/- Rs.1,98,400/-
Special diet, attendant and Rs.95,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:27:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2215/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
transportation charges
Marriage prospects --- Rs.3,00,000/-
Total... Rs.41,80,348/- Rs.61,11,485/-
Thus, total compensation of Rs.41,80,348/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, and therefore, same is required to be enhanced to the aforesaid extent i.e. Rs.61,11,485/- and hence, the appellant - original claimant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.19,31,137/- (Rs.61,11,485 - Rs.41,80,348) towards compensation and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.
[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal is dismissed and Cross Objection No.3 of 2024 in First Appeal No.2215 of 2023 stands partly allowed. The respondent No.2 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.19,31,137/- (Rs.61,11,485 - Rs.41,80,348) alongwith accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, with the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the present judgment. The Impugned judgment and award dated 18.11.2022 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1144 of 2016 is modified to the aforesaid extent and rest of the impugned judgment and award remains unaltered.
[8.1] After the aforesaid amount of enhanced compensation is deposited by the insurance company, learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount alongwith the enhanced amount of compensation as well as earlier deposited amount with accrued Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:27:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2215/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined interest thereon, if any, to the original claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure.
[9.0] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid.
[10.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:27:17 IST 2025