Gujarat High Court
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Akbar A Main on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/775/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 775 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
AKBAR A MAIN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Defendant(s) No. 2.1,2.2,2.3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance
company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated
28/11/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxiliary), Gondal in MACP No.83 of 2007.
2. Short facts of the claim case are as under:
2.1. On 25/01/2007, when the husband of applicant no.1 was
going on his bicycle on Shapar-Veraval Highway, the vehicle
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/775/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
driven by driver of opponent no.1 i.e. owner of the vehicle
came in negligent manner and dashed the husband of
applicant no.1 from back side and caused an accident due to
which the husband of applicant no.1 sustained serious injuries
and succumbed to the the same on the same day.
2.2. The respondents-original claimants therefore filed claim
petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
against the respondents of the claim petition.
2.3. Vide the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the
original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding
the original claimants entitled to receive compensation of an
amount of Rs.7,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its
actual realization with proportionate costs.
3. This Court vide order dated 21/03/2014, noticing the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant-
insurance company and the grounds raised in the present
appeal, has admitted the appeal.
4. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant-insurance company has submitted that the Tribunal
has committed an error in computing the amount of
compensation and also committed an error in considering the
future prospects. Learned advocate for the appellant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/775/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
insurance company has further submitted that in the
impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has
awarded the huge amount without appreciating the evidence
on record in its true perspective. By making the aforesaid
submission, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance
company has urged this Court to reconsider the issue involved
in the matter on proper appreciation of the evidence on
record and order accordingly.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the other side has
placed reliance upon the findings and reasons assigned by the
learned Tribunal and vehemently argued that after
appreciating the materials available on record, the learned
Tribunal has awarded the compensation under each head
which is just, proper and reasonable and not required to be
interfered in this appeal and lastly prayed to dismiss the
present appeal.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties on the issue involved in the matter and perused the
record and proceedings and impugned judgment and award,
more particularly, the findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal while considering the issue of quantum of
compensation.
7. As regards the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the appellant-insurance company on the issue of
assessment of quantum of compensation amount is concerned,
it appears from the record that the Tribunal has committed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/775/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
error to some extent and therefore, the matter is required to
be reconsidered. With regard to the income aspect, the
Tribunal has not committed any error as it appears that the
same is considered after appreciating the material evidence
on record. With regard to the aspect of prospective rise, the
Tribunal has considered the same as 50%, however, as per the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 25% prospective rise is
required to be considered noticing the age of the deceased as
50 years at the time of the accident. Noticing the age of the
deceased at the time of the accident as 50 years, in light of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the schedule
prescribed, multiplier of 13 is appropriate. Further, in view of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhur Ram & Ors reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, the
claimants would be entitled to enhance amount of
compensation under the head of loss of consortium also which
would come in this case as Rs.48,400 x 3 = Rs.1,45,200/-. The
amount awarded by the Tribunal under other conventional
heads is on higher side and hence the same is required to be
reconsidered. The amount to be awarded under the
conventional heads more particularly the funeral expenses
and the loss of estate is also required to be reconsidered as
Rs.18,150/- each in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/775/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
8. Therefore, as per the above discussion, the original
claimants are entitled to receive total amount of compensation
under different heads as mentioned in the tabular form
hereunder:
Compensation As per award under As awarded by this
challenge (Rs.) Court (Rs.)
Income at the time Rs.3,000/- Rs.3,000/-
of the accident.
Future prospects 50% = Rs.1,500/- 25% = Rs.750/-
Hence, Rs.4,500/- Hence, Rs.3,750/-
(Rs.3,000/- + (Rs.3,000/- +
Rs.1,500/-) Rs.750/-)
Deduction of 1/3rd of Rs.4,500/- 1/3rd of Rs.3,750/-
personal expenses = Rs.1,500/- = Rs.1,250/-
Hence, Rs.3,000/- Hence, Rs.2,500/-
(Rs.4,500/- - (Rs,3,750/- -
Rs.1,500/-) Rs.1,250/-)
Loss of future Rs.4,68,000/- Rs.3,90,000/-
income (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x (Rs.2,500/- x 12 x
13) 13)
Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,45,200/-
(Rs.48,400/- x 3)
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.18,150/-
Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.18,150/-
Loss of love and Rs.1,00,000/- -
affection
Total Rs.7,93,000/- Rs.5,71,500/-
Compensation
9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and
award dated 28/11/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/775/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Tribunal (Auxiliary), Gondal in MACP No.83 of 2007 is hereby
modified. The original claimants are held entitled to receive
total compensation of an amount of Rs.5,71,500/- with
interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till its actual realization. Since by the impugned
judgment and award the Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.7,93,000/-, the appellant-insurance company is entitled to
receive refund of difference amount to the tune of
Rs.2,21,500/- (Rs.7,93,000/- - Rs.5,71,500/-) with accrued
interest, if any.
10. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
tribunal forthwith, if received.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
