[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Jalpaben Dipeshbhai Vaishnani on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 411 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
JALPABEN DIPESHBHAI VAISHNANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 02/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Dimple A. Thaker learned advocate on
record for the appellant-New India Assurance Company
Ltd., Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi learned advocate has appeared
on behalf of respondent-original claimant and Mr. Jay M.
Thakkar learned advocate has entered appearance on behalf
of respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the
original opponent No. 2-Insurance Company under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short "the Act
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
1988 "), being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment
dated 09.12.2014 and award dated 22.12.2014 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux), at Gondal in
M.A.C.P No. 487 of 2006. By the said judgment and award
the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred
by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act,
1988 holding them entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
5,85,500/-, towards compensation from the original
opponents jointly and severally, with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition
till its actual realisation with proportionate costs.
3. Before adverting to the merits of the appeal,
appropriate would be to consider the manner in which the
accident was reported.
3.1. On fateful day on 28.12.2005, the deceased
Dipeshbhai Jamanbhai was traveling as a pillion rider on
Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration MH-
16X-854 which was driven by original opponent No.1. They
were traveling from Puna road, Maharashtra and while they
had reached near village Kamarganv opposite to Miles Stone
Hotel, their vehicle was hit by unknown luxury bus. It was
pleaded that the vehicles were driven in a rash and
negligent manner and the luxury bus had approached from
the wrong side and had hit the motorcycle and ran away.
Due to the impact, the deceased had sustained fatal injuries
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
and he had died on the spot. The heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased which includes the wife of
the deceased, their two minor children and the parents of
the deceased, have preferred claim petition under Section
166 of the Act, 1988 praying for compensation of Rs. 8
lakhs with interest and cost from the original opponents
which includes the driver of the motorcycle, the owner of the
motorcycle and the Insurance Company.
4. Considering the pleadings, the summons were issued
upon the original opponents before the Tribunal. Despite
service of summons, the driver cum owner (opponent No.1)
had chose not to enter appearance or to object to the claim
petition. The original opponent No.2 Insurance Company
had objected to the claim petition by submitting its written
statement at Exh. 17. Apart from disputing the averments
made in the claim petition, specific defense was raised by
the Insurance Company, disputing the negligence of the
driver of the motorcycle as well as holding of any valid
driving license. It was also contended that in absence of the
driver and the owner of the unknown luxury bus alleged to
be involved in the accident as being not joined as party to
the proceedings, the claim petition was not maintainable. It
was contended that the accident had occurred due to sole
negligence on the part of driver of the unknown luxury bus.
By raising aforesaid grounds, the Insurance Company had
disputed their liability to pay any amount of compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
Considering the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal had
framed issues at Exh. 23, which are reproduced as under :-
"1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving on the part of driver of MH-16X-854
as alleged?
2. What amount of compensation the applicant is
entitled to and from whom?
3. What order and award?"
5. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal had taken into
consideration, the examination-in-chief affidavit of the wife
of the deceased at Exh. 29 who had mainly reiterated the
averments made in the claim petition in her cross-
examination. The opponent Insurance company had failed
to bring on record any contradictory facts on the issue of
negligence. Considering the aforesaid evidence in light of the
other corroborative material; the post- mortem report of the
deceased produced on record, the FIR of the alleged
accident, the panchnama of the place of accident, the
Tribunal arrived at a finding that both the drivers of the
respective vehicles involved in the accident have attributed
to the occurrence of accident. The Tribunal had further
relied upon the Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court 2014 ACJ 74 as well as of this Hon'ble High Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
the case of Mayaben Ramanlal Jaiswal and another Vs.
Rajubhai Chimanlal Jaiswal and another reported in
(2014) ACJ 859 holding that in case of composite
negligence, all the opponents were jointly and severally
liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.
On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has noted
that the claimants have contended that the deceased was
serving in Shiv Shakti Solvent and was also doing furniture
work thereby earning income of Rs.8000/- per month,
however, in absence of any evidence on record being
produced reflecting the income of the deceased, the
Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.
3000/-. Considering the avocation of the deceased of
serving in the Industry, the Tribunal has considered 30%
addition towards future rise in the aforesaid income and has
thereby determined the prospective income of the deceased
as Rs. 3,900/- per month. Considering the age of the
deceased 20 years as recorded in the postmortem report,
the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 and has
considered the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased so as to arrive the monthly
dependency of the deceased as Rs. 2,600/-. The loss of
dependency was fixed as Rs. 5,30,400/- (Rs. 2600/-
multiply by 12 multiply by 17). The Tribunal has further
taken into consideration, the amounts under conventional
heads and has awarded Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5000/-
respectively. Lastly, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
under the head of love and affection and consortium. The
Tribunal has thereby awarded total compensation of Rs.
5,85,500/-. Having held so, the Tribunal has further
apportioned the liability of the opponent No.1, i.e driver cum
owner of the motorcycle to the extent of 30% thereby fixing
the liability of the driver of unknown luxury bus as 70%.
However, considering it as the case of composite negligence,
all the opponents are held jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation of Rs. 5,85,500/- with interest and cost.
Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the Insurance
Company of the motorcycle disputing their liability mainly
on the ground of the negligence and the quantum of
compensation.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant
Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that despite
specific defense being raised before the Tribunal disputing
the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has not appreciated the
evidence on record in its right perspective while holding the
driver of the motorcycle negligent to the extent of 30%. She
has invited my attention to the defense raised in the written
statement at Exh. 17 by the appellant Insurance Company
and has urged this Court to re-appreciate the FIR and
panchanamas as according to her no negligence can be
attributed to the driver of the motorcycle towards the
accident. Alternatively, she has submitted that even
considering 30% liability of the driver of the motorcycle, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
Insurance Company could not have been held liable to pay
the entire amount of compensation as can be gathered from
the directions issued by the Tribunal in its impugned
judgment and award by holding the driver, owner and the
Insurance Company of the motorcycle, jointly and severally
liable along with the driver of the unknown luxury bus.
7. In support of her submission, reliance was placed on
the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Sivasankara Pillay and
Ors. reported in (1995) ACJ 1077. The reliance was also
placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mariamma
George, reported in AIR 2010 (NOC) 838 (Kerala).
Referring to the observations made in the aforesaid decision,
learned advocate has submitted that the appellant
Insurance Company at the most can be held liable to pay
the amount of compensation to the extent of 30%. On the
quantum of compensation, learned advocate had submitted
that in absence of any proof of income being produced on
record, the Tribunal committed a serious error in fixing the
income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/-. It was submitted that
as per settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its various decisions, in absence of proof of income
on record, considering the nature of avocation of the victim
of the accident Courts/Tribunal are bound to follow the
yardstick of minimum wages prevailing at the time of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
accident the standard rates of minimum wages notified by
the State Government as prevailing on the date of the
accident ought to have been followed for fixing income.
According to her, the minimum wages prevailing even in the
case of skilled workers to be considered was Rs. 2,400/-.
She has further disputed the liability of the Insurance
Company by submitting that the pillion rider on a
motorcycle cannot be considered third party. The question
of law as to whether insurance company can be held liable
to pay compensation in case of injuries or deaths of pillion
rider is pending consideration before the larger Bench, in
view of the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohana Krishnan S. Vs. K.
Balasubramaniyam & ors, Special Leave to Appeal Nos.
3433 of 2020. By making aforesaid submissions learned
advocate has referred to and relied upon on the grounds
raised in the appeal memo and has urged this Court to
allow the appeal and to exonerate the Insurance Company
from its liability to pay compensation or to alternatively
modify the impugned judgment and award to the extent of
30%.
8. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi
appearing for the respondent original claimant has
forcefully objected to the aforesaid submissions made by
learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Learned advocate had mainly relied upon the findings and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
reasons assigned by the Tribunal and has submitted that
the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the FIR and
panchnama produced on record in light of the evidence of
the claimant. As rightly noted by the Tribunal, no
contradictory material fact has been brought on record by
the Insurance Company in the cross-examination of the
claimant. In absence of any rebuttal of the evidence of the
claimant, though the driver of the unknown luxury bus has
not been joined as party to the proceedings, however,
considering the manner in which the accident was reported
and been established by the claimant, the Tribunal has
rightly fixed the negligence of respective drivers to the extent
of 70% : 30%. It is equally settled principle that in case of
composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to sue both or
any of the joint tortfeasors and is also entitled to recover
the entire amount of compensation as their liability as joint
tortfeasor is jointly and severally. The reliance was placed
on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of legal heirs of deceased Karna bhai Rajsibhai & Ors.
Vs. Owner of Chakdo Rickshaw No. GJ-11-V-3106 & Ors.,
oral order dated 05.02.2025, passed in First Appeal No.
1714 of 2010 as well as in the case of Arvind Tulsidas
Ganatra Vs. Dilipkumar Jwalaprasad Pande in First
Appeal No. 4162 of 2018, oral order dated 15.02.2024.
Inviting my attention to the reasons assigned, learned
advocate had submitted that the Court has mainly relied
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
(2015) 9 SCC 273. Learned advocate has also placed
reliance upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of
this Court in the case of Mayaben Ramanlal Jaiswal and
another (supra). Inviting my attention to the facts of the
aforesaid cases referred to and relied upon, learned
advocate had submitted that in similar set of facts where
the collision had occurred between the vehicle involved in
the accident and the unknown vehicle, the Court has
appreciated the evidence on record and had answered the
issue of negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles
involved. Though the Court has apportioned the negligence
of the respective drivers of the vehicles involved, as regards
the liability towards the payment of entire amount of
compensation in case of composite negligence is concerned,
it has been held that the claimants are entitled to sue any of
the tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation.
Learned advocate has, therefore, urged this Court to dismiss
the present appeal on the issue of negligence.
9. As regards the quantum of compensation is
concerned, learned advocate had fairly submitted that no
appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the claimant,
however, in order to defend the amount of compensation
determined by the Tribunal to be just and proper, he had
pointed out that if the minimum wages are required to be
considered as Rs. 2,400/- then the future rise of income has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
wrongly been confined to 30% instead of 40%. Similarly, the
deduction of 1/3rd has wrongly been applied instead of
¼th. Considering the fact that the deceased was survived
by five members in the family at the time of accident. He
has further pointed out that the amount of compensation
awarded under the conventional heads is also required to be
revisited in light of the well settled principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its landmark decision in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned
advocate had, therefore, submitted that if the aforesaid
components are taken into consideration which is strictly in
accordance with the settled principles laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the amount of compensation is required to
be enhanced. He has, therefore, objected to the
entertainment of appeal on the issue of quantum of
compensation as well. Lastly, learned advocate had drawn
my attention to the written statement filed by the Insurance
Company at Exh. 17 to point out that in fact the defense
was raised disputing their liability on the ground that the
insurance policy was not produced on record at the relevant
stage. He had invited my attention to the insurance policy
which is essentially a cover note issued by the appellant
Insurance Company in respect to the offending vehicle
motor cycle at mark 29/3. Learned advocate had further
submitted that considering the grounds raised in the appeal
memo there is no challenge to the liability on the ground
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
that the policy was not issued in respect of the motor cycle
involved in the accident. Thus, having not disputed the
aforesaid policy, the issue which has been raised for the
first time before this Court with regard to the liability of the
Insurance company to be deferred in case of pillion rider of
the insured vehicle pending consideration in the reference,
was not taken before the Tribunal. He has, therefore,
objected to take into consideration the aforesaid issue for
entertaining the present appeal. However, he had submitted
that despite the aforesaid contention being raised if one
looks at the policy produced on record at mark 29/3, it is
evident that the said policy is not an act policy but a
package policy. The close examination of the contents of the
policy suggest that apart from the risk of the driver of the
motorcycle one passenger was also permitted as pillion rider
on the motorbike. Reading the overall contents of the policy,
this Court may not dwell into the aforesaid issue as pending
consideration in the reference before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the facts of the case. The attention of this Court
was invited to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Balakrishnan & another reported in 2013 (1) SCC 731. It
was submitted that before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the
appellant Insurance Company contended that it was an 'Act
only' policy and therefore, the liability could not be fastened
on the Insurance company to pay the compensation. It was
pointed out that the vehicle was insured in the name of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
company, the Managing Director was the legal owner of the
vehicle and therefore, the insurance liability was to the
limited extent as stipulated in the policy. On the other hand
the insurer had objected by submitting that even assuming
that the respondent No.1 was not the owner a non-fare
paying passenger would not be covered under the policy.
Barring the insurer and the insured, all others were
required to be treated as third parties and, therefore the
liability was covered in terms of the policy. The question
arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was whether in the present case, policy is an 'Act policy' or
comprehensive/package policy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
while appreciating the record noted that the Tribunal and
the High Court had failed to discuss on the issue or
appreciating the contents of the policy. The matter was
therefore, remitted back to the Tribunal to scurtinise the
policy in its proper perspective and the parties were
permitted to lead additional evidence to examine as to
whether it was a comprehensive/package policy so as to
determine the issue of liability.
10. The learned advocate had further submitted that in the
background of the facts of the case, the Court had taken
into consideration, the decision of the High Court of Delhi in
the case of Yashpal Luthra Vs. United India Insurance
Company Limited reported in 2011 ACJ 1415. The
controversy arose before the Hon'ble High Court with regard
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
to interpretation of the term package policy. After recording
the evidence of the competent authority of the tariff advisory
committee (TAC) and the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority (IRDA), a circular dated 16th
November 2009 was issued by IRDA to CEOs of all
Insurance Companies. restating the factual position relating
to the liability of insurance company in respect of pillion
rider on a two-wheeler and occupants in a private car under
the comprehensive/package policy. Referring to the
aforesaid circular being reproduced, learned advocate had
submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that it has
been admitted by the competent authority that the term
'comprehensive policy' is presently called a "package policy'.
Learned advocate had therefore submitted that considering
the aforesaid clarification issued by the competent
authorities, in view of the contents of the policy produced
on record at mark 29/3 the aforesaid policy is required to
be treated as 'comprehensive policy' covering the risk of the
pillion rider as well. Learned advocate has therefore, urged
this Court to dismiss the appeal and to confirm the
impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal.
11. I have carefully considered the arguments made by
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I
have also perused the findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal on the issues framed. I have also re-appreciated
the relevant evidence on record. At the outset, it would be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
appropriate to look into the issue of negligence. On careful
appreciation of the evidence of the wife of the deceased who
has been examined as witness and her evidence been
recorded at Exh. 29, it transpires that she is not the
eyewitness to the accident, however, she has reiterated the
manner in which the accident had taken place as pleaded in
the original claim petition. She has categorically pleaded
and deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was
traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle which was driven
in a rash and negligent manner by the original opponent
No.1 driver cum owner of the motorcycle rightly in the
middle of the road. At the same time, she has in the equal
breath pleaded and deposed that the driver of the unknown
luxury bus was equally negligent in driving the vehicle and
had hit the motorcycle from the opposite side.
12. Having noted the aforesaid evidence of the said witness
on appreciation of her cross-examination, the suggestion
put forward by the opponent Insurance Company, she has
conceded to the fact that her husband was sitting as a
pillion rider on the motorcycle and the said vehicle had met
with an accident with the unknown vehicle. She has denied
the suggestion of the counsel for the Insurance that the
driver of the motorcycle was not negligent. Except for the
aforesaid suggestion of the counsel for the Insurance
Company, no contradictory material fact has been brought
on record rebutting the evidence of the claimant involving
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
the driver of the offending vehicle motorcycle equally
negligent towards occurrence of the accident. On re-
appreciation of the documentary evidence mainly the FIR
and the panchnama produced on record, the case of the
claimant has been corroborated through the aforesaid
documentary evidence. The Tribunal with such evidence on
record has rightly taken into consideration the post-mortem
report of the deceased which suggest that the deceased had
succumbed to fatal injuries caused in a motor vehicle
accident. The driver cum owner of the vehicle had chosen
not to object to the claim petition, at the same time the
Insurance Company has failed to examine the driver of the
motorcycle as witness. With such evidence on record no
error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in
holding the driver of the motor cycle negligent towards the
occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal has further taken
into consideration the FIR and the panchnama produced on
record in light of the evidence of wife of the deceased to hold
the driver of the unknown luxury bus negligent towards
occurrence of accident.
13. Having noted the aforesaid findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal and having re-appreciated the
evidence, as regards the legal position of the liability of
insurance company is concerned, admittedly when the
deceased was a pillion rider it is a case of composite
negligence. In such circumstances, where the joint
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
tortfeasors were involved, the claimants are entitled to seek
recovery of the amount of compensation by filing claim
petition against both tortfeasors or either of them and are
also entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation
as liability of joint tortfeasors is jointly and severally as held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenei
(supra), in case of composite negligence, apportionment of
compensation between two tortfeasors vis a vis the
claimant is not permissible. Thus, the claimants are entitled
to seek recovery of the entire amount of compensation from
any of the tortfeasors. The Court has also held that it would
not be appropriate for the Court/Tribunal to determine the
extent of composite negligence of the driver of two vehicle in
absence of impleadment of other joint tortfeasors, however,
as regards the entitlement of recovery of amount of
compensation is concerned no error can be found with the
directions issued by the Tribunal to recover the amount of
compensation jointly and severally. Thus, leaving the option
open for the claimant to seek recovery of the entire
compensation from either of the opponents.
14. Having examined the issue of negligence, if one looks at
the issue of liability, it would be required to be noted that
the issue of pillion rider being not a third party for the
purpose of determining the liability of the insurance
company of insured vehicle pending consideration in the
reference before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
agitated for the first time in the present appeal. On careful
consideration of the defense raised in the written statement
at Exh. 17 and the grounds raised in the appeal memo, the
same is bereft of such defense. The policy issued by the
insurance company as produced on record at mark 29/3
has not been disputed by the appellant Insurance company.
On bare perusal of the contents of the policy, it is evident
that it is a package policy issued by the Insurance Company
in fact the insured vehicle is permitted to ply with one
passenger. Considering the aforesaid contents of the policy
in light of the circular issued by the competent authority
IRDA as reproduced in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra), there is no
reason for this Court to accept the plea of the appellant-
Insurance Company that the Insurance Company was not
liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
Considering the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case
of Yashpal Luthra (supra), this Court is of the view that
the package policy of the motor cycle covers the risk of
pillion rider as well. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the
liability of the appellant Insurance company jointly and
severally with the driver of the unknown luxury bus to pay
compensation to the claimants.
15. This brings me to the last issue of quantum of
compensation as disputed by the appellant-Insurance
Company mainly on the ground that the income of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
deceased is fixed on the higher side. It is true that no
documentary evidence worth has been produced on record
to satisfy that the deceased was earning monthly salary of
Rs. 8000/-. The Tribunal has therefore, rightly followed the
minimum wages, however, as evident from the standard
rates of minimum wages as notified by the State of Gujarat
at the time of the accident which has taken place on
28.12.2005, the minimum wages as notified in the case of
skilled workman was Rs. 2,400/-. Apt would be to follow the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Govind Yadav vs. New India Assurance Company
Limited reported in 2012 ACJ 28 (SC). It has been held that
in absence of any direct proof of income being produced on
record, the Courts/Tribunal are at liberty to follow the
minimum wages notified at the time of accident for the
purpose of determination of the income of the victim of the
accident. Considering the avocation of the deceased in the
facts of the case, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the
income of the deceased to Rs. 2,400/- per month. As
regards the loss of dependency is concerned if one looks at
the well settled principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, the Tribunal
ought to have considered deduction of ¼ th instead of 1/3rd
as admittedly, the deceased was survived by 5 members in
the family at the time of accident towards his personal and
living expenses. As regards the multiplier applied, the age of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
the deceased being fixed as 28 years which would fall in the
age group of 26 to 30 years, no error can be found with the
approach of the Tribunal in adopting the multiplier of 17.
16. Considering the circumstances on record, following the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra), the case of the deceased being treated of a
fixed salary person falling between the age group of below
the age of 40 years, 40% rise was required to be considered
towards the prospective income of the deceased.
Considering the aforesaid components, the loss of
dependency is redetermined as Rs. 5,15,400/-. Learned
advocate for the respondents has fairly conceded to the fact
that no appeal or cross-objections have been filed praying
for enhancement. However, since the appeal is also filed on
the issue of quantum of compensation bearing in mind the
object of legislation to award just and reasonable amount of
compensation, noticing the vehemency of the appellant-
Insurance Company disputing the quantum of
compensation, this Court is mandated to examine the
aforesaid aspect. Considering the broad principles that a
beneficial legislation is required to be adopted in a manner
which promote social welfare, protect vulnerable groups and
provide effective remedies to accident victims this Court
bearing in mind the core object of just and reasonable
amount of compensation to be awarded, cannot ignore the
well settled principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
on quantum of compensation. While considering the
amount of compensation under the head of dependency
loss, this Court has in absence of appeal or any cross-
objections been filed by the original claimant, been
compelled to look into the quantum of compensation being
awarded under the conventional heads as well.
17. In view of the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), as well
as in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs.
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhur Ram & Ors reported in (2018) 18
SCC 130, the amount of compensation awarded under the
head of loss of love, affection and consortium is re-
determined. Noticing the fact that the deceased was
survived by five members in the family, the amount of loss
of consortium is required to be re-visited in view of aforesaid
principles. However, it is also required to be noted that the
mother of the deceased is reported to have expired pending
the present proceedings. Keeping in mind the aforesaid fact
and the fact that the claimants mainly include the wife of
the deceased, their two children, the father of the deceased,
the loss of consortium is re-determined as Rs. 1,93,600/-
(Rs. 48,400/- multiply by 4) instead of Rs. 30,000/-
awarded under the head of love, affection and consortium.
Similarly, the amount of compensation awarded under the
head of loss of estate and funeral expenses is re-determined
as Rs. 18,150/- each.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
18. For the foregoing reasons, the total amount of
compensation is re-determined as under :-
Sr. Details Tribunal In Appeal
No.
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 5,30.400/- Rs.5,15.400
2. Conventional amount Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 1,93.600/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs. 5000/- Rs. 18,150/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 20,000 Rs. 18,150.
5. Total amount Rs.5,85,400/- Rs. 7,45,300/-
19. For the forgoing reasons, the First Appeal is hereby
partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 09.12.2014
and award dated 28.12.2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal in MACP No. 487 of 2006 by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) Gondal is hereby modified
by holding the original claimants entitled to seek recovery of
total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,45,300/-
with interest at the rate of 9% from the original opponents
jointly and severally. Rest of the directions issued by the
Tribunal with regard to the apportionment of the awarded
amount in favour of the claimants is hereby confirmed.
Needless to clarify that in case the minors have turned
major it shall be open for the Tribunal to pass appropriate
orders.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/411/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026,
undefined
20. Having held so, the appellant Insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation
to the tune of Rs.7,45,300/- with interest and proportionate
costs as awarded by this order before the concerned
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On deposit of the
entire awarded amount with the concerned Tribunal, it shall
be open for the Tribunal to proceed with the release and
disbursement of the awarded amount in favour of the
respective claimants subject to due verification and strictly
adhering to the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this
regard. The Tribunal shall undertake such exercise within a
period of two weeks from the date of deposit of the entire
awarded amount. It is further directed that it shall be open
for the Tribunal to recover the requisite Court fees, if any,
before proceeding with the release and disbursement of the
awarded amount.
21. With these observations, the First Appeal stands
disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The record and
proceedings are directed to be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal with a writ of this judgment.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
