[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Ilaben Wd/O Chhaganbhai Chamabhai ... on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3208/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3208 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3208 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
ILABEN WD/O CHHAGANBHAI CHAMABHAI CHAUDHARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
O I PATHAN(7684) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,5
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 01.03.2025
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Surat in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.956 of 2015 (Old No.335 of
2023).
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The brief facts of the claim petition are that on 07.06.2013,
claimant's husband, deceased Chhaganbhai Chamabhai
Chaudhari, was travelling in a Maruti Van bearing registration
No. GJ-5-AT-9970 from Mandvi to Devgadh for repair work at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3208/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
the Telephone Exchange. The vehicle was being driven by
Akshaybhai at a normal speed, carefully and in accordance with
traffic rules, on the left side of the road. When they reached near
village Rupan, a truck bearing registration No. GJ-9-V-5735,
owned by opponent No.2 and driven by opponent No.1, came
from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, at
excessive speed, without observing traffic rules, and lost control.
The truck collided head-on with the Maruti Van, resulting in
serious injuries to Chhaganbhai Chamabhai Chaudhari, who
succumbed to the injuries due to the negligence of opponent
No.1.
4. The appellant-Insurance Company, by preferring the present
appeal, has inter alia contended that the learned Tribunal has
not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has
awarded compensation on the higher side. The appellant has
assailed the award mainly on the ground that the learned
Tribunal has erred in considering the appropriate multiplier. The
deceased was 56 years of age, and as per the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a person aged between 56-60
years falls in the multiplier group of '9'. However, the learned
Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of '11'. It is
further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in
granting interest on future prospects, as future prospects relate
to probable future income, and therefore, there is no
requirement to award interest on the said component. It is also
contended that the learned Tribunal has taken an overly liberal
view in awarding compensation under various heads.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3208/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Accordingly, it is prayed that the amount of compensation be
suitably reduced
5. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the
respondents has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that
the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper
compensation in view of the evidence available on record.
Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award passed
by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after
taking into consideration the entire material on record and
hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court
and the present appeal may be dismissed.
6. It appears that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered
the issue of negligence on the basis of the evidence of claimant
Nos. 1 and 6 and the witnesses examined at Exhibits 27, 40, and
47. The complaint lodged against the driver of the offending
truck is produced at Exhibit 29, the panchnama at Exhibit 30,
and the charge-sheet at Exhibit 32. The coverage of the
insurance policy is not in dispute. Opponent No.3 has also
examined the driver of the offending vehicle to prove the
negligence driving in an attempt to establish contributory
negligence. The insurance policy has been produced at Exhibit
7. For the purpose of assessing compensation, the Tribunal
has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.
47,936/- per month, as he was serving with BSNL. After
deducting professional tax and other permissible deductions, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3208/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
annual income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 5,45,316/-
annually, which appears to be proper. The Insurance Company
has not raised any objection regarding the future prospects or
the quantum of income. However, the principal grievance of the
Insurance Company is that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was 56 years and 6 months old and thus fell within the
age group of 56-60 years. As per the law laid down in Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121,
the applicable multiplier for this age group is '9', whereas the
Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of '11'.
Therefore, the multiplier requires correction.
8. The Tribunal has correctly taken 15% towards future
prospects, thereby arriving at the annual income of Rs.
6,27,113.40. Considering that the deceased had six dependents,
1/4th of the income has been deducted towards personal
expenses, and the resultant annual dependency comes to Rs.
4,70,335/-, which appears to be just and proper. Applying the
correct multiplier of '9', the total dependency compensation
comes to Rs. 42,33,015.15 (4,70,335.05 × 9). The rounded-off
amount comes to Rs. 42,33,000/-.
9. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/- towards Loss
of Estate, Rs.48,000/- towards Loss of Consortium, and
Rs.18,000/- towards Funeral Expenses. There being five
dependents, these amounts are required to be enhanced in view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The
recalculated amount is as under::
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3208/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
1. Future Loss of Income
Rs. 42,33,000/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
4. Loss of Consortium (Rs.48,400 × 5) Rs.2,42,000/-
Total: Rs.45,11,300/-
10. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is
hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by
the learned Tribunal is hereby reduced and modified from
Rs.52,57,686/- to Rs.45,11,300/-. Now the claimant is entitled
to get compensation of Rs.45,11,300/-. Respondent-Insurance
Company shall deposit the said amont of compensation along
with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.
11. Since the main appeal is disposed of, the present Civil
Application does not survive. Hence, the same is disposed of as
having become infrutuous.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
