Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Namdev Dhanuji Jagtap on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/543/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 543 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of
2018
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 543 of 2015
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 108 of 2015
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 543 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
NAMDEV DHANUJI JAGTAP & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MAULIK H VAGHELA(7810) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,4,5,6
MR KRUNAL R SAKSENA(5915) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,4,5,6
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Defendant(s) No. 9
MS VANDANA L BHATT(2464) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed against the impugned judgment
and award dated 22.04.2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi), City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/543/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.813 of 2003, whereby the
learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- as a
compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per
anuum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
realization.
2. The original claimants have also filed the captioned Cross-
objection for the enhancement of compensation.
3. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal and
Cross-objection are that on 16.01.2003 deceased Rahulbhai was
going from Palanpur to Ahmedabad by driving Tempo bearing
registration No.GJ-1-TT-9663 and when he was passing from
Palanpur Highway near Bharkavada Sim, in the meantime, the
respondent No.1 came by driving his truck bearing registration
No.RJ-19-G-4100 in a rash and negligent manner at an
excessive speed so as to endanger the human life and hit the
Tempo of the deceased Rahulbhai. In the said accident,
Rahulbhai succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of the
claimants before the learned Tribunal that at the time of
accident, the deceased was aged about 24 years and was earning
Rs.3,000/- per month and an incentive of Rs.50/- per day.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/543/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Hence, they claimed the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with
interest.
4. The notices of the claim petition were duly served upon the
respondents, original respondent No.2 i.e. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited/appellant herein filed the written statement at
Exh-13 denying all the contentions raised in the claim petition
and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal has framed the issued at Exh-59 which are as under:-
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident
had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of
driver of vehicle involved in the accident?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get
compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom?
3. What final award?"
6. In order to prove their claims, the original claimants have
led the following oral as well as the documentary evidences.
Sr No. Particulars Exhibit
3. Copy of panchnama of the place 56
of accident
5. Post Mortem report of the 58
deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/543/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
7. Having considered the material on record, the learned
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.7,60,000/- as a compensation along with the interest
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till realization and respondent No.1 and 2 held liable to
pay the compensation jointly and severally, however, the
respondent No.3 and 4 were exonerated from all the liabilities.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, original opponent No.2 before the learned
Tribunal/appellant herein preferred the appeal and thereby
challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground of
quantum while the original claimants have filed the captioned
Cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Rituraj M. Meena appearing on
behalf of the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed serious illegality in ascertaining the
income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, though the
income was not proved on record. He further submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/543/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
accident occurred in the year 2003, therefore, the learned
Tribunal cannot be considered the income more than Rs.2,000/-
at the time of accident. He further submitted that, therefore, the
award is required to be modified accordingly.
11. On the other hand, learned advocate for the original
claimants vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in
considering the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- at the time
of accident. He further submitted that the oral evidences have
been led to that extent that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/-
per month and he was also getting the incentive of Rs.50/- per
day. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the
income of the deceased. He further submitted that the original
claimants are not challenging the award on the ground of
negligence but they are challenging the award on the ground
that the meager amount has been awarded under the head of
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
Therefore, the compensation awarded under these heads be
suitably modified in accordance to the settled positions of the
law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Varma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in
2009 (06) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/543/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Pranay Shethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130. He further submitted that
the award is required to be modified to that extent.
12. Having considered the submissions of the learned
advocates for the parties, it is to be noted that there is no
dispute regarding the negligence, age and the manner of
happening of accident. The appellant has challenged the income
while the original claimants have challenged the compensation
awarded under the conventional heads.
13. Having considered the pleadings of the original claimants
and the oral evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month.
The learned Tribunal has also enhanced the income by 40% on
account of the future prospective income of the deceased. The
accident had occurred in the year 2003. It is not in dispute that
the deceased was the driver and he can be termed as skilled
worker. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any
error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-
per month at the time of accident and further adding the 40% of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/543/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
the monthly income on account of future prospects of the
deceased as the deceased was 24 years old at the time of
accident.
14. So far as the contention of the learned advocate for the
original claimants is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate.
Considering the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Pranay Shethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram (Supra) the learned Tribunal could have awarded the
reasonable amount. Therefore, a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded
under the head of loss of estate. Further the learned Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of
consortium, though it is on record that the deceased was
survived by his wife, two minor children, his parents and his
brother. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered
in the case of Pranay Shethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram (Supra). Both the parents, wife and children are entitled
for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium,
therefore, accordingly a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- (48,400 x 5) under
the head of loss of consortium. Similarly, the learned Tribunal
has awarded a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/543/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
funeral expenses, it is required to be enhanced to Rs.18,150/-.
The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- on
account of transportation of dead body the same is maintained.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the original
claimants shall be entitled for the following amount of
compensation under the following heads.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 7,29,000/-
Loss of estate 18,150/-
Loss of consortium (48400 x 5) 2,42,000/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Expenses towards transportation of dead 6000/-
body
Total 10,13,300/-
Less: compensation already awarded 7,60,000/-
Enhancement 2,53,300/-
15. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,60,000/-. In
view of the above discussions, the original claimants shall be
entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,53,300/-
(Rs.10,13,300/- -(minus) Rs.7,60,000/-). The learned Tribunal
has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum the same
is maintained and not required any interference.
16. In view of the above discussions, the appeal preferred by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/543/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
the Insurance Company stands dismissed and the Cross-
objection stands allowed partly.
17. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit additional
amount of compensation within a period of 6 weeks from today
along with the interest with the learned Tribunal. Upon
depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall
disburse the amount to the original claimants along with the
interest after due verification.
18. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry
of this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith.
19. R & P be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal
forthwith.
20. No order as to costs.
21. In view of the above, the Civil Application will not survive.
Hence, Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
