Gujarat High Court
Heirs Of Decd Trikamji Raghvaji vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3067 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HEIRS OF DECD TRIKAMJI RAGHVAJI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned
judgment and award dated 01.07.2013 passed by the learned
Tribunal (Auxi.) Dhrangadhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.62 of 2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.3,42,600/- as a compensation along with the simple
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal is that
on 02.04.2005 at about 07.20 a.m. when Trikamji Raghvaji was
riding his motorcycle on the correct side of the road, near
Shishumandir school on Halvad-Sara road, in the meantime, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
respondent No.2 herein came by driving ST bus bearing
registration No.GJ-18-V-5618 in rash and negligent manner and
dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. In the said accident,
the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently he
succumbed to the injuries.
3. Upon being served with the notices of the claim petition,
the respondent No.1 filed the written statement at Exh-29 and
thereby denying the contents of the claim petition and prayed for
dismissal.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal has framed the issues which are as under:-
"1. Whether the deceased died owing to the
injuries sustained in the vehicular accident owing
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the vehicle involved in the accident?
2. Whether the applicants are entitled for
compensation?
3. What order?"
5. Having considered the material evidences on record, the
learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,42,600/- as a
compensation along with the simple interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
judgment and award, the original claimants/appellant herein
preferred the present appeal thereby challenging the impugned
judgment and award on the ground of negligence as well as
quantum.
7. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
8. Learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera appearing on behalf
of the original claimants/appellant vehemently submitted that
the learned Tribunal has held the rider of the motorcycle
contributorily negligent to the extent of 25%. She further
submitted that the FIR was lodged by the driver of the ST bus
involved in the accident. On the basis of FIR, after conducting
the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution
agency against the driver of the offending bus/respondent No.2
herein. She further submitted that not only this, the police has
recorded the statement of the conductor of the bus who stated
that the accident has been caused owing to the sole negligence of
respondent No.2 herein/driver of the offending bus. She further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has ignored all the materials
on record and committed a serious illegality in holding that the
rider of the motorcycle was negligent to the extent of 25%. She
further submitted that in the light of the evidences on record,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
the rider of the motorcycle cannot be held liable, therefore, the
findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of
negligence is deserved to be reversed.
9. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that
the learned Tribunal has determined the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.3,000/-. The said income is not challenged, but
at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 43 years,
therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have added 40% in place of
30% to the monthly income on account of future prospects,
therefore the monthly notional income be further enhanced by
40% on account of future prospects of the deceased.
10. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that
the learned Tribunal has awarded the meager amount under the
conventional heads. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as a loss of consortium though the deceased was
survived by four legal representatives i.e. his wife, his two sons
and mother. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal
ought to have awarded a loss of consortium to all four legal
representatives but the learned Tribunal has awarded only a
sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. She
further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
meager sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of estate and
the meager amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral
expenses. She further submitted that the compensation awarded
under the head of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses is deserved to be enhanced to Rs.1,93,600/-, 18,150/-
and 18,150/- respectively under these heads.
11. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 GSRTC vehemently
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
and award. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
rightly appreciated the evidences on record. She further
submitted that the accident has occurred owing to the sole
negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Learned advocate for
the respondent No.1 also placed reliance on the panchnama of
place of accident. Relying upon the panchnama, she further
submitted that after accident the bus was found on the correct
side of the road, therefore, it was the rider of the motorcycle who
came from the wrong side. She further submitted that not only
this, the driver of the bus himself appeared before the learned
Tribunal in the witness box and proved his version. He was also
cross-examined but the claimants could not elicit anything in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
their favour, therefore, there is no infirmity in the findings
returned by the learned Tribunal under issue No.1.
12. So far as the compensation under the conventional heads
is concerned, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that
the same may be awarded as per the settled legal positions of
law.
13. Having considered the submissions of the learned
advocates for the parties and having gone through the record, it
is to be noted that Gauriben @ Gitaben Trikamji filed the
affidavit examination-in-chief at Exh-9. In her affidavit she
stated that the accident has occurred owing to the sole
negligence of the driver of the ST bus bearing registration No.GJ-
18-V-5618, but in the cross-examination she admitted that she
is not the eye-witness of the accident, therefore, on the point of
negligence, her oral testimony is of no use. The driver of the ST
bus/respondent No.2 herein also stepped into witness box and
in his affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh-30, he stated that
the accident has occurred owing to the sole negligence of the
rider of the motorcycle. He was cross-examined by the learned
advocate for the appellant and he was suggested that the
accident has occurred owing to his sole negligence but he
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
denied his suggestion. Learned advocate for the appellant placed
reliance on the statement of the conductor of the bus. In his
statement made to the investigating officer he stated that the
accident has occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver
of the bus, but the said witness was not examined by the
claimants before the learned Tribunal. Further, perusal of the
panchnama, it transpires that after the accident bus was lying
on the left hand side of the road, thus, having considered the
materials on record, in my considered view the learned Tribunal
has not committed any error in holding that the rider of the
motorcycle was also contributorily negligent for causing the
accident to the extent of 25%. Therefore, the findings returned
by the learned Tribunal under issue No.1 deserves no
interference and the same is upheld.
14. So far the income is concerned, learned Tribunal
determined the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month
from agriculture, was further enhanced by 30% on account of
future prospects of the deceased. In my considered view, learned
Tribunal has committed error in increasing the monthly income
by 30% in place of 25% on account of future prospects, in view
of the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Shethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 therefore the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
income would come to Rs.3,750/- (Rs.3000 + 3000 x 25%).
Therefore, annual income would come to Rs.45,000/- (3750 x
12). At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 43
years, therefore, the multiplier of 14 is required to be applied
which was rightly applied by the learned Tribunal. After applying
the multiplier of 14, the total future loss of income would come
to Rs.6,30,000/- (45000 x 14). It is on record that the deceased
left behind by four legal representatives. Therefore, ¼ of the
amount is required to be deducted on account of personal
expenses of the deceased. After deducting the ¼ of the said
amount, the net future loss of income comes to Rs.4,72,500/-
i.e. (Rs.6,30,000/- Less Rs.1,57,500/-). The learned Tribunal
has awarded meager amount of compensation under the
conventional heads. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of estate. It is on record that
the deceased was left behind four legal representatives i.e. his
wife, his two sons and mother. In view of the judgment of
Pranay Shethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram reported in
2018 (18) SCC 130, all the legal representatives are entitled for
the loss of consortium. The loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses are also to be enhanced by 10% for a block of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
each three completed years. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,93,600/-
(48,400 x 4) awarded under the head of loss of consortium.
Similarly, a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of
loss of estate and further a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded
under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore the
claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the following
compensation.
15. In view of the above discussions, the following
compensation is awarded under the following heads.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future Loss of Income 4,72,500/-
Loss of Consortium 1,93,600/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Total 7,02,400/-
Negligence attributed to the appellants (25%) 1,75,600/-
(25% of
Rs.7,02,400/-)
Total amount after deducting negligence 5,26,800/-
Less: compensation already awarded 3,42,600/-
Enhancement 1,84,200/-
16. It is to be noted that the deceased held contributorily
negligent for causing the accident to the extent of 25%, hence
25% of the compensation is to be deducted on acccount of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3067/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
contributory negligence. Thus, the appellants shall be entitled
for total compensation of Rs.5,26,800/- (Rs.7,02,400/- less 25%
of Rs.7,02,400/-). The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of
Rs.3,42,600/-, therefore, the appellants shall be entitled for an
additional compensation of Rs.1,84,200/- (Rs.5,26,800/- less
Rs.3,42,600/-).
17. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum, therefore, the appellant shall also be entitled for the
interest at the rate of 7.5% on the said additional amount of
compensation.
18. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal stands
allowed partly to the above extent.
19. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the additional
amount of compensation along with the interest within a period
of 8 weeks from today. Upon depositing of the said amount, the
learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the original
claimants after due verification.
20. R & P be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal
forthwith. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
