Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Giraben Vashrambhai Jogarana on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1112/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1112 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
GIRABEN VASHRAMBHAI JOGARANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ANAND R PATEL(7352) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 10
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 10
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6,9
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award dated 06.09.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main.), Surendranagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.22 of 2019, the appellant - Insurance Company has preferred
present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1112/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
2) Heard Mr.Rathin P. Raval, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company, Mr.Anand R. Patel, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned counsel for
respondent No.10. Though served, no one appears for other
respondents.
3) Considering the facts of the case and with consent of learned
counsel for the respective parties, present appeal is taken up for its
final disposal.
4) The facts emerge from the record of the appeal are that, on
15.01.2019, deceased was travelling in EECO car and when he was
reached near the spot of the accident, driver of insured Esteem car
who came in rash and negligent manner jumped divider and dashed
with the EECO car of the deceased. As a result, the deceased received
fatal injuries and succumbed to death. Therefore, the legal heirs of
the deceased filed Motor Accident Claim Petition before the learned
Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of
Rs.40,00,000/-, wherein learned Tribunal after considering the
submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the claimants and
material produced on record, awarded compensation of
Rs.37,80,200/- along with interest @ 9 % P.A. Being dissatisfied with
the said compensation, the appellant has filed present appeal for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1112/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
quashment of the award and reduction of the amount awarded by the
learned Tribunal.
5) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned
Tribunal has awarded very exorbitant amount of compensation
without considering any evidence produced on record and committed
error in considering multiplier as well as income of the deceased; that
as the deceased was government servant, salary slip was produced at
Exh-62, wherein it was clearly mentioned that monthly salary of the
deceased was Rs.31,734/- and deduction amount is shown Rs.200/-
towards professional tax. No deduction of any income tax is there,
which ought to have been deducted. It is also submitted that though
the deceased was aged about 54 years old and age of retirement is 58
years, maximum 4 multiplier can be applied. Therefore, learned
Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the income of the
deceased and therefore, he requested to interfere with the amount
of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
6) Learned counsel for respondent No.10 - Insurance Company has
submitted that, they are formal party and is already exonerated by
the tribunal, and therefore, this Court may pass appropriate order.
7) As the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that sole
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1112/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
negligent is on the part of the EECO car being Registration No.GJ-03-
DG-6317 and therefore, opponent No.6-Driver of Esteem car is
already exonerated.
8) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the appellant
has preferred appeal mainly on the ground that income of the
deceased was not properly considered. Deceased was government
servant and serving as a Peon in Sir J. High School at Lakhtar. Salary
certificate was also produced at Exh:62. Witness Manish Parmar was
examined and he has produced the details of salary of December,
2018 and also pay difference statements from 13.02.2019 to
31.07.2024 at Exhs:100 to 112. Perusing the said evidence, learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was
Rs.31,374/- p.m and deduction was Rs.200/- towards professional tax.
As an accident took place on 15.01.2019, last drawn salary has been
considered. Considering all such evidence, income of the deceased
was assessed at Rs.31,374/- p.m. As deceased was in permanent job
and fall under the criteria between 50 - 60 years as per the law laid
down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, 15 % award is required to be
awarded towards future prospects. Considering the same, total
income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.36,264/-. As there are five
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1112/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
dependents of the deceased, deduction of 1/4 was required to be
deducted as per the settled law. Hence, after deducting 1/4th amount
of personal and living expenses, monthly family dependency loss was
considered as Rs.27,198/- by the learned Tribunal.
9) Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
[2009 (6) SCC 121], the ld. Tribunal considering the age of the
deceased being 54 years, has rightly applied multiplier 11 and
therefore, his annual income came to Rs.3,26,376/-. Considering ratio
laid down in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, learned tribunal has awarded
Rs.15,000/- under loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of
love and expectation of life and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral
expenses. The daughter and sons of the deceased are even otherwise
entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium
as per the decision of the Apex Court, Rs.1,20,000/- has been rightly
awarded by the ld. tribunal.
10) In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding
compensation to the claimants. Moreover, the appellant-Insurance
Company did not challenge the evidence produced by the claimants
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1112/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
regarding the income of the deceased. Therefore, no question arises
with respect to the assessment of the take-home salary, and the
additional ground based on facts raised for the first time in this appeal
is without any specific defence. Accordingly, on such flimsy grounds,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the amount of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11) Generally, parties are expected to present their entire case,
including all claims and defenses, before the learned Tribunal or Trial
Court, so as to avoid being barred from raising such issues at a later
stage. Since no question of law has been raised by the appellant, a
question of fact cannot be raised for the first time before the
Appellate Court.
12) So far another argument canvassed by the learned counsel for
the appellant is concerned that the deceased was 54 years old at the
time of the accident and only 4 years of service remained, and
therefore, a multiplier of 4 ought to have been applied by the learned
Tribunal. It is required to be noted that the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court has affirmed the principles laid down in Sarla
Verma (Smt.) & Ors. (supra), maintaining a standard addition for
future prospects and enforcing the use of a uniform multiplier. The
said principles have also been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1112/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
Court in the case of N. Jayashree v. Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd., [(2022) 14 SCC 712], and Maya Devi v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., [AIR 2025 (SC) 1612]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
explicitly set aside the decision of the High Court which had applied a
split multiplier, reiterating that the standard multiplier method must
be followed unless specific and extraordinary reasons are recorded. In
the present case, to ensure uniformity in awarding just and reasonable
compensation, as per the law laid down in Maya Devi (supra), the Court
should not calculate compensation by applying a split multiplier
without cogent and specific reasons. Instead, the compensation
should be determined by applying a consistent multiplier approach as
outlined in Sarla Verma (supra). Hence, the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the appellant are not acceptable.
13) For the foregoing reasons and observations, present appeal fails
and is hereby dismissed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned learned Tribunal.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
