Gujarat High Court
Shilpaben Narshibhai Solanki vs Samirbhai Kadarbhai Rindbloch on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2131 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHILPABEN NARSHIBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
Versus
SAMIRBHAI KADARBHAI RINDBLOCH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 18/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 22.08.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, at Rajula in MACP No.767/2011, whereby the learned Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.2,89,660/- as a compensation along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on
25.04.2010, the deceased and his friend Dineshbhai were going for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
filling the diesel in Bolero Jeep owned by respondent no.3 herein at the
petrol pump situated at Rajula-Ningala Road and after getting filled the
diesel, when they were returning back, in the meantime, a truck bearing
registration no.GJ-8-U-1017 came at excessive speed and in rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed with the
Bolero Jeep. At the time of accident, the truck was being driven by the
driver of respondent no.1 and the Bolero Jeep was being driven by the
deceased-Narshibhai Rudabhai Solanki. In the said accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It
is also the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that the
accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of
respondent no.1.
3. On being served with the notices of the claim petition, the
insurance company of the truck bearing registration no. GJ-8-U-1017
i.e. the respondent no.2 herein filed the written statement at Exh.22,
thereby denying the averments made in the claim petition and prayed
for dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that the deceased
himself was negligent for causing the accident. It was also contended
that the deceased was not holding the valid driving licence to drive the
vehicle in question at the time of accident. The respondent no.3/owner
of the Bolero Jeep had also appeared before the learned Tribunal and
filed the written statement at Exh.16, thereby submitting that the
accident occurred owing to the sole negligence on the part of driver of
the truck of respondent no.1. The respondent no.4/insurance company
had also filed the written statement at Exh.36 and thereby denying the
contentions raised in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the
claim petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.25:-
(1) Whether the applicants prove that deceased received injuries and
died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
vehicle involved in the accident as alleged?
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to get the compensation amount?
If yes, how much amount and from whom?
(3) What order and award?
5. Having considered the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal
held that the deceased himself was negligent to the extent of 30% and
while the driver of the truck bearing registration no.GJ-8-U-1017 was
negligent to the extent of 70%. The learned Tribunal has awarded a
total sum of Rs.3,88,800/- and out of the said amount, 30% of the
awarded amount was deducted on account of self-negligence of the
deceased and exonerated the respondent nos.3 and 4; however, the
respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. the owner and the insurance company of
the truck bearing registration no.GJ-8-U-1017 were directed to pay 70%
of the awarded amount i.e. Rs.2,89,660/-.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the original claimants/appellants herein challenged the
impugned judgment on the ground of exoneration of respondent nos.3
and 4 from satisfying the award and also on the ground of quantum
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
8. Mr. Hemal Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant vehemently submitted that the deceased was the paid driver
of Bolero Jeep bearing registration no.GJ-14-T-4469 and the owner of
the vehicle has paid the additional amount of premium of Rs.25/- for
covering the risk of the paid driver. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has
committed gross illegality in exonerating the respondent nos.3 and 4
from satisfying the award. The learned counsel for the appellant, in
support of his contention, relied on the judgment of the Full Bench
rendered in case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Widow of Late
Laxmanbhai Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) & 3 others Vs. Kandla Dock
Labour Board & 1 others, reported in 2021 (4) GLH 77.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased as
Rs.2,700/- per month, which is lesser than the minimum wages
prevalent at the time of accident. It is further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased,
therefore, in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, 40% of the
monthly income is required to be added on account of the future
prospective income of the deceased. So far as the multiplier is
concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned
Tribunal has applied the right multiplier; however, learned Tribunal has
awarded the meagre amount under the heads of loss of estate, funeral
expenses and loss of consortium. He further submitted that the
deceased was left behind by 4 legal representatives, therefore, the
learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the loss of consortium to all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
legal representatives. He further submitted that the award is required to
be modified to that extent. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the
appellant no.4-Rudabhai Ranabhai Solanki has expired on 10.01.2023.
He further submitted that all the legal representatives of Rudabhai
Ranabhai Solanki has already been on record. Therefore, the appellant
no.4 may be deleted from array of the parties. Learned counsel for the
appellant has placed the death certificate of Rudabhai Ranabhai
Solanki on record during the course of arguments.
10. On the other hand, Mr. R.G. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent no.2/insurance company and Mr. Nikunt K.
Raval, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4
vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment and award. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be
rejected.
11. Having considered the submission of the learned counsels for the
parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
learned Tribunal while deciding the issue of negligence, held that the
truck driver was negligent to the extent of 70% for causing the accident
and the deceased himself, who was driving the Bolero Jeep at the time
of accident, is negligent to the extent of 30% for causing the accident.
The said finding has not been disputed by the appellants. It is the say of
the appellants that the deceased, who was the driver of the Bolero Jeep
at the time of accident, was the paid driver and the owner has paid the
additional premium to cover the risk of the paid driver/deceased herein.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in
deducting 30% of the awarded amount on account of the self-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
negligence. It is not in dispute that the additional premium of Rs.25/-
was not paid to cover the risk of the paid driver. The issue is no more
res integra and has been settled by the Full Bench of this High Court in
First Appeal No.3907/2017 and allied matters titled as Valiben
Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Widow of Late Laxmanbhai
Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) & 3 other(s) Vs. Kandla Dock Labour
Board & 1 other(s), reported in 2021 (4) GLH 77. In the said case, the
question which was referred to the Full Bench of this Court in Para 4 is
as under:-
"4 By an order dated 27.06.2018 passed by coordinate bench,
considering the various judgments, was pleased to refer the following
questions for consideration of the larger bench - "Whether the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya &
Anr. (Supra) laid down correct law by holding that in view of insured
paying additional premium for the liability of the paid driver, the Insurance
Company is liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act
computed upon the death or injury caused to the driver out of an accident
which arises solely on account of driver's own negligence"
12. The Full Bench has replied the said reference and observed in
Para 15 is as under:-
"15 In our opinion, by accepting additional premium, the Insurance
Company indemnifies the owners for paid Driver and/or Conductor and
risk of Driver/Conductor is covered under it. Upon death or injury caused
to the paid Driver and/or Conductor, the Insurance Company would be
liable to satisfy such claim irrespective of self-negligence. Thus, the
observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Saberabibi
Hisammiya Umarvmiya & Anr. (supra) lays down the correct law. The
Reference is thus, answered accordingly".
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
13. The controversy in the case on hand is that the deceased, who
was driving the Bolero Jeep at the time of accident, was held negligent
to the extent of 30% and the respondent nos.3 and 4 were exonerated
on that ground alone. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the paid
driver and the owner of jeep had paid additional premium of Rs.25 to
cover the risk of paid driver and conductor. In my considered view, the
case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of Full Bench of
this Court rendered in case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (supra).
Hence, the finding returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of
exoneration of the owner/driver and insurance company of Bolero Jeep
bearing registration no.GJ-14-T-4469 is not sustainable and hence
liable to be reversed.
14. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,700/- per
month. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was
a driver, therefore, he may be termed as skilled worker. At the relevant
point of time, when the accident occurred, the minimum wages for
skilled worker as notified by the Government of Gujarat was Rs.4,200/-
per month; however, the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly
notional income of the deceased as Rs.2,700/- per month, which is
lesser than the minimum wages prevalent at that relevant point of time.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed the serious illegality in
considering the income of the deceased, which is much lower than the
minimum wages. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased at the
time of accident is determined as Rs.4,200/- per month.
15. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
aged about 31 years, therefore, the notional income is further to be
enhanced by 40% on account of future prospects of the deceased in
accordance to the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered
in the case of Pranay sethi (supra). Accordingly, after adding 40% of the
monthly notional income of the deceased, the monthly income of the
deceased would come of Rs.5,880/- i.e. (4,200+4,200X40%). It is on
record that at the time of accident, the deceased was survived by 5
legal representatives, therefore, 1/4th of the monthly notional income is
required to be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the
deceased. Therefore, after deducting 1/4th of the notional monthly
income, the net monthly income of the deceased would come to
Rs.4,410/- i.e. (5,880-5,880X1/4). It is not in dispute that at the time of
accident, the deceased was aged about 31 years, therefore, the
multiplier of 16 is required to be applied to calculate the loss of
dependency. Therefore, accordingly the loss of dependency would
come to Rs.8,46,720/- i.e. (4,410X12X16).
16. The learned Tribunal has awarded the meagre amount of
compensation under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses
and the same is enhanced to Rs.18,150/- under each head in
accordance to the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
the case of Pranay sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., reported
in 2018 (18) SCC 130. It is not in dispute that the deceased was
survived by 5 legal representatives; however, the learned Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. It
is to be noted that during the pendency of the present appeal, the
respondent no.4/father of the deceased has expired on 10.01.2023.
Therefore, the appeal against respondent no.4 stand abated and is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
deleted for the array of the parties and accordingly, now the deceased
survived by 4 legal representatives, therefore, all the 4 legal
representatives are entitled for the compensation under the head of loss
of consortium and accordingly a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- i.e. (48400X4) is
awarded under the head of loss of consortium. Thus, in view of the
above discussions, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the
following compensation under the following heads:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Loss of dependency 8,46,720/-
2. Loss of estate 18,150/-
3. Funeral expenses 18,150/-
4. Loss of consortium 1,93,600/-
Total 10,76,620/-
17. As discussed above, the impugned judgment and award was not
disputed on the point of negligence and the learned Tribunal has
apportioned the inter se negligence of the driver of the Bolero Jeep and
the driver of the truck in the ratio of 30:70. Therefore, all the
respondents shall be liable to satisfy the award in the ratio determined
by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has awarded the total
sum of Rs.2,89,660/-(after deducting 30% on account of the self-
negligence of the driver). Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled for
additional amount of compensation of Rs.7,86,960/- i.e. (10,76,620-
2,89,660). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
The said rate of interest is not interfered and therefore, the appellant
shall be entitled for the same rate of interest on the additional amount of
compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2131/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
18. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal stands
allowed. The insurance company i.e. respondent nos.2 and 4 shall
deposit their respective shares of compensation along with interest
within a period of 6 weeks from today. Upon depositing of the said
amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire
amount of compensation along with interest to the original
claimants/appellants herein after due verification and after deducting
deficit Court fee, if any. The statutory amount, if any, lying deposited
with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the
learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. No order as to costs.
19. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
