Gujarat High Court
The National Insurance Company Limited vs Dineshkumar Revashankar Joshi on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1658/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1658 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
DINESHKUMAR REVASHANKAR JOSHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KRUPALI N BHATT(9455) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 20.02.2018 passed by learned Tribunal (Auxiliary), Deesa,
Dist. Banaskantha in MACP No.3420/2009, whereby the learned
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- 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 negligence and the facts are not in dispute, therefore, the
same are not narrated herein for the sake of brevity. At the outset,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1658/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of accident,
the deceased-Pankhuben @ Pinkiben was aged about 35 years. She
further submitted that the income was not proved on record and the
learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased
as Rs.10,000/- per month. She further submitted that in absence of
proof of income, the learned Tribunal could have considered the
minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident; however, the learned
Tribunal had determined the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per
month. She further submitted that learned Tribunal ascertained the
monthly income of Rs.10,000/- per month without any basis. Therefore,
the same is required to be reduced to the amount equivalent to
minimum wages as notified by the State Government at the time of
accident. She further submitted that at the relevant point of time, the
minimum wages for skilled worker was Rs.2,800/- per month. Therefore,
the income of the deceased can be determined as Rs.2,800/- per
month. She was aged about 35 years, therefore, 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. Thus, after
adding 40% of the monthly income on account of the future prospects of
the deceased, the monthly notional income would come to Rs.3,920/-
i.e. (2,800+2,800X40%); however, learned Tribunal has considered the
monthly income as Rs.10,000/- per month.
3. No other ground has been pressed into service.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the original claimants/respondent nos.1 to 3 vehemently
submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was gainfully
engaged in preparing of Papad in Grah Udyog and thereby earning
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1658/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Rs.150/- per day. She was also engaged in the work of agriculture and
thereby earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month from agriculture.
He further submitted that the deceased was also engaged in animal
rearing and was earning Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per day by the sale of
milk. Therefore, the income of the deceased could have been
determined as Rs.15,000/- per month from all sources of income.
However, the learned Tribunal has determined the income of the
deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. He further submitted that there is
no infirmity in determining the income, therefore, the present appeal
deserves to be rejected.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
factum of accident, age and dependency of the original claimants have
not been disputed. The learned counsel for the appellant has only
disputed the income determined by the learned Tribunal. The claimant
in order to prove his case filed the affidavit at Exh.14. In the said
affidavit, he deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was
earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by selling the milk. She was also
earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month by preparing the Papad in Grah
Udyog and was also earning Rs.3,000/- from agricultural work.
Therefore, his monthly income at the time of accident was Rs.17,500/-
per month. The claimant-Dineshkumar Revashankar Joshi was cross-
examined by the learned counsel for the insurance company. The said
income was disputed by way of putting the suggestion in the cross-
examination, but the suggestion was denied. Therefore, in order to
rebut the version of the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 3, the insurance
company has not placed any evidence nor examined any witness to
rebut the version of the claimants. However, the claimant has proved on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1658/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
record a certificate issued by Talati-cum-Mantri at Exh.15, thereby
declaring that the deceased was engaged in animal husbandry and was
having two buffaloes and two cows at the time of accident. The
claimants have also proved on record the certificate issued by the
Panthawada Milk Production Cooperative Society at Exh.16, which
shows that the deceased used to sell the milk to the said dairy and
thereby earning Rs.330/- per day. The original claimants have also
produced on record the extract of form 7/12 at Exh.17 and form 8-A at
Exh.18. The Exhs.17 and 18 would show that the husband of the
deceased was having the land in his name and he was doing the
agricultural work. Further, the bills of purchasing the seeds also
produced on record at Exh.19, which shows that the deceased also
purchased the seeds for sowing in the field. It is settled proposition of
law that the claimants have to establish their case on the
preponderance of probability and not beyond the reasonable doubts.
6. Having regard to the evidence produced by the claimants on
record, I am of the considered view that at the time of accident, the
deceased was engaged in preparing the Papad in Grah Udyog,
engaged in animal husbandry and also helping his husband in
agricultural work. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed
any error in determining the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- at
the time of accident. Therefore, the present appeal is devoids of merit
and liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal stands
dismissed. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1658/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
8. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
