Gujarat High Court
Raval Bhavnaben Maheshbhai vs Rashiklal Samjibhai Patel on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1522/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1522 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAVAL BHAVNABEN MAHESHBHAI & ORS.
Versus
RASHIKLAL SAMJIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR. AKASH R PATEL(6715) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal (Auxiliary),
Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP No.618/2012, whereby the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.8,81,000/- 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 present appeal are that on
02.06.2012, Maheshkumar was riding on a motorcycle bearing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1522/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
registration no.GJ-7-AK-2679 as a pillion rider. The said motorcycle was
being driven by respondent no.4 herein at very moderate speed and in
careful manner and when he reached near Mardeshwar Temple, in the
meantime, respondent no.1 herein came by driving a car bearing
registration no.MH-43-V-5911 in rash and negligent manner, in
excessive speed so as to endanger the human life and dashed behind
the motorcycle. As a the result of the said accident, Maheshkumar fell
down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and subsequently,
succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of the original claimants
that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years and
was earning Rs.4500/- per month from masonry and agricultural work.
Therefore, they filed the claim petition for seeking the compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. On being served, the respondent no.3/insurance company filed
the written statement at Exh.19, thereby denying all the averments
made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
The other respondents have not filed the written statement.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.39:-
(1) Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died
on account of rashness and negligence in driving on the part of the
driver of the vehicle/vehicles involved in the accident?
(2) What amount, if any applicants/claimants are entitled to get by
way of compensation and from which of the opponents?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1522/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
(3) What order?
5. In order to prove their claims, the appellants/original claimants
herein led the following oral as well as documentary evidences:-
Sr. No. Evidences Exh. No.
1. Affidavit of examination in chief and cross 42
examination of appellant no.1
8. Insurance policy 53-A
6. Having considered the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal
partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.8,81,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of
claim petition till its realization. The learned Tribunal has also
apportioned the liability between respondent nos.1 to 3 at one part and
respondent no.4 on the other part in the ratio of 50:50.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the appellants have challenged the award on the ground of
negligence as well as quantum.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
9. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1522/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
deceased was riding on the motorcycle as a pillion rider, therefore, no
liability can be attributed to the deceased. However, the learned
Tribunal while apportioning the liability, held the respondent nos.1 to 3
liable to satisfy the award to the extent of 50% and fastening the liability
on respondent no.4 to the extent of 50%. He further submitted that it is
the case of composite negligence, therefore, the appellants can recover
the amount of compensation from any of the tortfeasors or jointly and
severally from all of the tortfeasors. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has
committed an error in holding that the respondent nos.1 to 3 are entitled
to satisfy the award to the extent of 50% and on the other hand, the
respondent no.4 to the extent of 50%. He further submitted that all the
respondents ought to have been held jointly and severally liable to
satisfy the award. He further submitted that the finding returned by the
learned Tribunal on that aspect is required to be reversed.
10. So far as the quantum is concerned, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the deceased was working as mason and
agriculturist at the time of accident and was earning Rs.4,500/- per
month at the time of accident. However, the learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased at much lower than what was
proved on record. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased at the time of accident as
Rs.3,500/- per month. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal
has also failed to appreciate that the deceased was aged about 32
years at the time of accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to
have added 40% of the monthly notional income on account of the
future prospects of the deceased; however, the learned Tribunal in total
disregard to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1522/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
AIR (2009) 6 SC 3104, has not considered the future prospective
income of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal
has awarded a meager amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of
consortium, though the deceased was survived by four legal
representatives i.e. widow, two minor sons and mother. He further
submitted that all the legal representatives are entitled for the
compensation under the head of loss of consortium; however the
learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.25,000/- under
the said head. He further submitted that the compensation awarded
under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses are also not in
accordance to the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
the case of Sarla Verma (supra), National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
Ors., reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130. He further submitted that the
impugned judgment and award is to be modified to that extent.
11. On the other hand, Mr. R.G. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company vehemently submitted
that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, therefore,
the present appeal deserves to be rejected.
12. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that at
the time of accident, the deceased-Maheshkumar was riding on the
motor cycle bearing registration no.GJ-7-AK-2679 as a pillion rider. The
learned Tribunal came to the conclusion while deciding the issue of
negligence that the accident took place owing to the rider of the motor
cycle bearing registration no.GJ-7-AK-2679 and the driver of the car
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1522/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
bearing registration no.MH-43-V-5911; however, the learned Tribunal
has apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50:50 between the
respondent nos.1 to 3 at one part and respondent no.4 on the other
part. So far the apportionment of liability is concerned in view of the
ratio of judgment of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors., reported in
2008 (3) SCC 748 and Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company
Limited, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273, the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error, but so far as satisfaction of judgment and award is
concerned, the learned Tribunal ought to have directed all the
tortfeasors to satisfy the award jointly and severally; however, the
learned Tribunal had not directed so. Therefore, the said findings of the
learned Tribunal is required to be modified and accordingly, all the
respondents are held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.
13. So far as the quantum is concerned, the appellants have pleaded
and also stated on affidavit that at the time of accident, the deceased
was earning Rs.4,500/- per month from masonry as well as agricultural
work. Therefore, it appears that the appellants have pleaded the
genuine income of the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal has
committed an error in not considering the monthly notional income of
the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and accordingly, I hold that the
monthly income of the deceased is determined as Rs.4,500/- per month
at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal has also not considered
the future prospects of the deceased though at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged about 32 years, therefore, in view of the ratio of
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), the 40% of the monthly income is required to be added to the
monthly notional income of the deceased on account of future prospects
of the deceased. Therefore, after adding 40% of the monthly income on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1522/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
account of the future prospects of the deceased, the monthly notional
income would come to Rs.6,300/- i.e. (4,500+4,500x40%).
14. It is also on record that the deceased was survived by four legal
representatives, therefore, in view of the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court rendered in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay
Sethi (supra), ¼ of the monthly income is required to be deducted on
account of personal expenses of the deceased to determine the loss of
dependency. Therefore, the net monthly income after deducting ¼ from
the total notional income, the monthly income would come to Rs.4,725/-
i.e. (6,300-6,300X1/4).
15. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was
aged about 32 years, therefore, after applying the multiplier of 16, the
total loss of dependency would come to Rs.9,07,200/- i.e
(4,725X12X16).
16. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of
Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and a sum of
Rs.60,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. In view of the
ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra), all the
appellants/original claimants i.e. widow, two sons and the mother of the
deceased are entitled to get the compensation under the head of loss of
consortium. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- i.e. (48,400X4) is
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 also a sum
of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses in view of
ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sarla
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1522/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Verma (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram
(supra). Thus, in view of above discussions, the appellants shall be
entitled for the following compensation under the following heads:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Loss of dependency 9,07,200/-
2. Loss of consortium 1,93,600/-
3. Funeral expenses 18,150/-
4. Loss of estate 18,150/-
Total 11,37,100/-
17. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,81,000/-,
therefore, the appellants shall be entitled for the additional
compensation of Rs.2,56,100/- i.e. (11,37,100-8,81,000). The learned
Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The said
rate of interest is not required to be interfered, therefore, the appellants
shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition till its realization on the additional amount of
compensation.
18. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal stands
allowed. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the
award and at the first instance, the respondent no.3/insurance company
shall deposit the entire amount of compensation with the learned
Tribunal within the period of four weeks from today and thereafter, the
insurance company can recover the amount falls in the share of
respondent no.4 as the liability apportioned by the learned Tribunal from
the respondent no.4.
19. Upon depositing of the said amount of compensation, the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1522/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation to the
appellants after deducting the deficit of court fee, if any, after due
verification. The statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the
registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the learned
Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
20. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
