Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Chaudhary Kokilaben Sureshchandra on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3626 of 2011
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 158 of 2012
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3626 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
Versus
CHAUDHARY KOKILABEN SURESHCHANDRA, & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS DHARA M SHAH(5546) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal and cross objection have been filed
against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2010
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Fastrack Court No.1, at Surendranagar in M.A.C.P. No. 449 of
1993, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 11,34,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing
the Claim Petition until its realization, as compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the instant
appeal are summarized as under:-
i. On 11.01.1993, Mr. Sureshchandra (hereinafter
referred to as "the deceased") was travelling on
National Highway No.8-A by driving Fiat car
bearing Registration No. GJ-2-A-1718. When he
reached near the village Jakhan, the said car
dashed with the backside of a truck bearing
Registration no. GRN-4655, which was in a
stationary (parked) condition. In the said
accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries
and consequently succumbed to those injuries.
ii. It is also the case of the Original Claimants that at
the time of the accident, the deceased was aged
about 38 years and he was gainfully engaged in
the occupation of business and agriculture work
and thereby earning a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from
both the sources of income. Therefore, the legal
representatives of the deceased filed the Claim
Petition before the learned Tribunal seeking
compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.
iii. Having been served the Notices/summons of the
Claim Petition, the appellant-Insurance Company
filed its Written Statement at Exh. 11, wherein it
denied the averments made in the Claim Petition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
and also disputed the age, income, factum and
manner of occurrence of accident and in brief, the
Insurance Company prayed for the dismissal of
the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties
and the material available on record, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.20:-
i. Whether it is proved that the deceased
sustained injuries and died on account of
the rash and negligent driving on the part
of the driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident ?
ii. What amount of claim is entitled by way of
compensation from which of the
opponents ?
iii. What order?
v. Having considered the material on record and
considering the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal
partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs. 16,20,000/- as compensation, and
thereafter deducted 30% of the awarded amount
on account of the negligence of the deceased.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal awarded net
amount of compensation of Rs.11,34,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
the date of filing the Claim Petition until its
realization, as compensation.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the appellant-
Insurance Company have preferred the captioned
appeal, thereby challenging the award on the
ground of quantum, while the original claimants
have preferred the Cross Objections in the
Captioned Appeal on the ground that the learned
Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of
compensation.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant - Insurance Company submitted that the learned
Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at higher
side. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
determined the income of the deceased as Rs.1,50,000/- per
annum. He contended that the income of the deceased is at
very higher side, therefore, the same is required to decreased
considering the date of accident. He further submitted that
the accident occurred in the year 1993. Therefore the learned
Tribunal in year 1993 determined the income as Rs.1,50,000/-
per annum, which is at very higher side. He further submitted
that the award is required too be modified to that extend.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
5. On the other hand, Ms. Dhara Shah, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Original Claimants vehemently
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any
error in considering the income of the deceased as
Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. She contended that the learned
Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd on account of the personal
expenses of the deceased from the annual income of the
deceased. She further submitted that the deceased is survived
by 5 legal representatives, therefore, the learned Tribunal
ought to have deducted only 1/4th of the annual income on
account of personal expenses of the deceased. She further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded the meagre
amounts under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses
and loss of consortium, therefore the same is required to be
enhanced in accordance to the ratio of judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC
680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018)
18 SCC 130. Relying upon the ratio of above judgments,
learned counsel for the original claimants submitted that the
considering the facts and circumstances, the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be enhanced.
6. Having perused the material available on record, and in
view of the broad consensus between the learned counsels for
the parties, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the
findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
negligence, and the same is accordingly upheld. Further, it is
not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the decease
about 38 years and he was engaged in the occupation of
business as well as agriculture work. It was pleaded by the
Original Claimants that the annual income of the deceased
was Rs.1,50,000/-, but however considering the evidence on
record, it prima facie appears that the learned Tribunal has
considered the income at very higher side and therefore, the
income is now reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Further,
in view of the ratio of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104,
10% of the income is deducted on account of Income Tax,
therefore, the net annual income of the deceased would come
to Rs.90,000/- per annum.
7. It is on record that the learned Tribunal has not
considered the future prospects of the deceased, therefore,
40% of the annual income is required to be added to the
annual income on account of future prospects of the deceased.
Therefore, after adding 40% to the notional income of the
deceased, the annual income of the deceased would come to
the tune of Rs.1,26,000/- (i.e. Rs.90,000/- + 40% of
Rs.90,000/-).
8. Further, it is on record that the deceased was survived
by 5 legal representatives, however the learned Tribunal has
deducted only 1/3rd on account of the personal expenses of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
the deceased. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (supra), only 1/4th of the annual income is required to
be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the
deceased. Thus, after deducting, 1/4th on account of the
personal expenses of the deceased, the annual income for
calculating the loss of dependency would come to Rs.
Rs.94,500/- (i.e., Rs.1,26,000/- - 1/4th of Rs.1,26,000/-).
9. It is undisputed fact that at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged about 38 years, therefore, the learned
Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of "15".
However, in place of multiplier of "15", the learned Tribunal
has applied the multiplier of "16". Therefore, after applying
the multiplier of "15", the loss of dependency would come to
Rs.14,17,500/- (i.e., Rs.94,500 X multiplier of "15").
10. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of
Rs.5,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral
expenses. The same is required to be enhanced in view of the
judgment of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram.(supra). Therefore,
a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded under each of the heads,
namely, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses .
11. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of
Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore,
considering the legal representatives left behind by the
deceaed, a sum of Rs.1,45,200/- is awarded under the head of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
loss of consortium.
12. Therefore, in view the above discussions, the Original
Claimants shall be entitled for the following amount of
compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount
No. (in rupees.)
1. Loss of dependency 14,17,500/-
2. Loss of consortium (+) 1,45,200/-
3. Funeral Expenses (+) 18,150/-
4. Loss of Estate (+) 18,150/-
5. Total Compensation 15,99,000/-
13. After deducting 30% on account of negligence of the
deceased, the total compensation comes to the tune of
Rs.11,19,300/- (i.e., Rs.15,99,000/- - 30% of 15,99,000/-). The
learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 19.07.2010
has awarded Rs.11,34,000/- as compensation after 30% on
account of the self negligence of the deceased. Therefore, a
meagre difference of 14,700/- is required to be refunded to
the appellant - Insurance Company. However, considering the
smallness of amount, I deem it fit not to interfere with the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
14. Therefore in view of the discussions, the impugned
judgment and award dated 19.07.2010 is modified to the
above extent and the compensation is maintained. With the
above observations, the Captioned Appeal and Cross
Objection No. 158 of 2012 stand disposed of.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3626/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
15. 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.
16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
