[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
