Gujarat High Court
Natvarbhai Prabhatbhai Parmar vs Chatrasinh Abhesinh Parmar on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/782/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 782 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NATVARBHAI PRABHATBHAI PARMAR
Versus
CHATRASINH ABHESINH PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been filed against the
impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2011 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), 10 th
Additional District Judge, Vadodara, in M.A.C.P. No. 278 of
1999, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the Claim
Petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the instant
appeal are summarized as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/782/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
i. On 30.10.1998, Swaraj Mazda tempo bearing
Registration No. GJ-6-U-5416 was proceeding
towards Padra. In the said tempo goods were
loaded and as soon as the tempo reached near
village Haranmal-Navapura, one truck bearing
Registration No. GRQ-6551 came from opposite
direction and collided with the aforesaid tempo.
At the time of the accident, the said truck was
being driven by the appellant herein.
ii. Original opponent No.5/Respondent No.5 herein -
United India Insurance Company Limited filed its
Written Statement at Exh.16 and thereby
contended that the Claim Petition is not
maintainable before the learned Tribunal and the
claimant/appellant is himself negligent for
causing the accident, therefore, the Claim Petition
is liable to be dismissed.
iii. Having considered the pleadings of the parties
and the material available on record, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.17:-
i. Whether it is proved that the
claimants/deceased sustained body
injuries/died due to rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver of the
vehicle involved in the accident ?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/782/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
ii. What amount, if any, the claimants are
entitled to by way of compensation and
from which of the opponents ?
iii. What order ?
iv. In order to prove his claim, the original claimant/
appellant herein led oral and documentary
evidences before the learned Tribunal.
v. Having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidences on record and after
considering the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal
rejected the claim of the present appellant on the
ground that the appellant himself was negligent
for causing the accident, therefore, held that he is
not entitled for any compensation.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned Tribunal, the original claimant/appellant
herein preferred the captioned appeal, thereby
challenging the findings returned by the learned
Tribunal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/782/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
4. Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, learned counsel appearing for the
original claimant/appellant herein submitted that the
respondent no.5- United India Insurance Company had
admitted in its Written Statement that the claim of the
appellant is maintainable under the Workmen's Compensation
Act. He further contended that instead of dismissing the Claim
Petition on the point of negligence, the learned Tribunal could
have awarded the compensation as entitled under the
Workmen's Compensation Act. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on
the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench in the case of
Sattarbhai Isabhai Vs. Rehmatben Mehboob Sandhi reported
in 2011 (O) AIJEL-HC 226502. Relying upon the ratio of the
aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that at the time of the accident, the appellant was
gainfully engaged as a driver, earning sum of Rs.4000/- to
Rs.5,000/- per month. He further submitted that at the time of
the accident, the age of the appellant was 30 years and he had
sustained disability of 26% body as a whole as per the
Disability Certificate. He further submitted that as per the
Workmen's Compensation Act, the income of the
claimant/appellant can be determined as Rs.4,000/- per
month and 60% of the monthly wages can be taken as per the
Workmen's Compensation Act to calculate the future loss of
income. He further submitted that the claimant/appellant has
sustained the functional disability to the extent of 26%,
therefore, considering the of the claimant/appellant herein,
the learned Tribunal could have considered the factor of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/782/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
207.98, and as such, the learned Tribunal could have awarded
a sum of Rs.1,29,779.52/- as compensation.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Palak H Thakkar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5-United India
Insurance Company vehemently submitted that there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. He further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try
and adjudicate the claim and to award the compensation in
accordance of Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, the
present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having gone through the material
available on record, it is to be noted that the learned Tribunal
has dismissed the Claim Petition filed by the appellant on the
sole ground that the claimant/appellant himself was solely
negligent for causing the accident. It is also to be noted that
the respondent No.5 - United India Insurance Company in its
Written Statement has admitted that the claim of the present
appellant falls under Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore,
he cannot pursue the Claim before the learned Tribunal. The
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent
No.5 - Insurance Company is no more res-integra. The
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Sattarbhai
Isabhai (supra) at paragraph 13 had held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/782/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
"13.0 In view of the above scenario, it is evident that
the accident has occurred during the course of
employment. It is not disputed that the claimants
could have preferred claim under the Workmen's
Compensation Act. The claimants could have
claimed compensation from the employer and the
appellant insurance company with whom the vehicle
was insured on the ground that the deceased died
in the course of his employment. This is especially
so when the claimants have not raised the
contention with regard to payment of additional
premium before the Tribunal. However, it would not
be appropriate to relegate the claimants to resort to
the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act at
this stage and it is only appropriate to consider the
appropriate compensation under Workmen's
Compensation Act."
7. Having regard to the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, it
would be apt if instead of relegating the appellant herein to
resort to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
to award suitable compensation in the present appeal itself in
accordance with the provisions of Workmen's Compensation
Act. It has been pleaded that at the time of the accident, the
appellant was gainfully employed as a driver and was earning
a sum of Rs.4,000 to Rs.5,000/- per month and further it is not
in dispute that at the time of the accident, the
Claimant/appellant was aged about 30 years and had
sustained functional disabilities to the extent of 26%.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/782/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
8. Thus, considering the income of the Claimant/appellant
herein as Rs.4,000/- per month, the Claimant would be
entitled for the following amount of compensation :
Sr. Particulars Amount
No.
1. 60% of Monthly Wage 2400
(Rs.4,000 X 60%)
(Rs.2400 X 26%)
3. Relevant factor (for age 30) 207.98
1,29,780.00
4. (rounded figure)
Total Compensation
(Rs.624 X 207.98)
9. In view of the above discussions, the appellant herein
will be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,29,780/- (One Lakh
Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Only. The
impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid
extent and accordingly, the captioned appeal stands allowed
partly.
10. Respondent No.5- United India Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing the Claim Petition till realization, within a period of six
weeks from today with the learned Tribunal concerned. On
depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall
disburse the entire amount of compensation to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/782/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
appellant/original claimant, after due verification, and after
deducting Court fee, if any, as per Rules.
11. If any amount is lying deposited in the caption appeal
with the Registry of this Court, the same may be transmitted
to the learned Tribunal concerned. Records and Proceedings,
if any, be sent to the concerned learned Tribunal. No order as
to costs.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
