[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Shirin Alias Shirin Parveen Azizur ... on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/87/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 87 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
SHIRIN ALIAS SHIRIN PARVEEN AZIZUR REHMAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.KARNA H DHOMSE(6684) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MS HIMANI V SHAH(11300) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 21.09.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux),
Surat, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.156/2015, the appellant -Insurance Company preferred
present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2. Heard Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned Advocate for the appellant -
Insurance Company, Mr. Karna Dhomse, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Himani Shah, ld. Counsel for respondent No.4. though
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/87/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
served, none appears for respondent No.3.
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 11.02.2015, the deceased Azizur
Habibur Rahaman along with his minor son was going on motorcycle bearing
No.GJ-05-DA-1238 slowly and when they reached near the spot of accident,
at that time, one truck bearing No.GJ-5-BT-1312 came from wrong side in
rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle. As a result, the
deceased and his son got serious fatal injuries and succumbed to it.
Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased to
get compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating
the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.39,68,215/- along with cost and interest @ 7.5 % p.a.
4. The appeal is filed on the limited ground of quantum, and no issue
regarding liability or contributory negligence is challenged. Learned counsel
for the appellant has mainly submitted that the Tribunal has awarded
exorbitant compensation, which is required to be scaled down. It is
contended that the documents produced at Exhibit 30 and the witness
examined at Exhibit 42 pertain to Form No.16 for the Assessment Year
2015-16, which is shown to have been signed on 31.12.2014. It is therefore
submitted that Form No.16/16A is fabricated. It is further contended that
the deceased was not holding an engineering degree but only a diploma
qualification. No documentary evidence such as an appointment letter or
proof of salary and allowances has been produced. The salary and
allowances have neither been properly segregated nor any deductions
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/87/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
considered. The Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on
record and has erred in determining the quantum of compensation. Hence,
it is prayed that the appeal be allowed as prayed for.
5. Learned counsel for the opponents have opposed the present appeal
and submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the documents
produced on record. Income tax returns are produced on record. Hence,
they have submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in
awarding compensation. Hence, he has prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident
that the involvement of the vehicle, coverage of the insurance policy, and
liability are not in dispute. The appeal has been filed only on the aspect of
quantum, and liability has not been challenged. The Insurance Company has
also not filed any cross-objections. Hence, the appeal is required to be
decided in a narrow compass. The Tribunal has held the driver of the
offending vehicle solely negligent in causing the accident, relying upon the
documents at Exhibits 62 and 63. For the purpose of determining
compensation, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence produced by the
claimants. Upon consideration of the same, the Tribunal assessed the
average annual income of the deceased and accepted as Rs.3,07,777/- per
annum, relied on the salary of the deceased for the period from April 2014
to March 2015. The document produced at Exhibit 49 and the PAN card are
on record. As per Form No.16, the income of the deceased is shown to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/87/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
Rs.3,23,334/-.
7. The deceased was employed with Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd. as
a Boiler Fitter. The muster roll was produced at Exhibit 47, and the monthly
salary for the relevant period was paid into the savings bank account of the
deceased. Form No.16 was produced at Exhibits 54 and 55 for Assessment
Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 (Financial Years 2013-14 and 2014-15). After
deducting tax, the average income of the deceased was rightly considered
at Rs.3,07,777/- per annum. The Tribunal has assigned proper and valid
reasons based on the documentary evidence available on record. No error
has been committed by the Tribunal, nor is any apparent from the aforesaid
calculations.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly relied upon the date
mentioned in Form No.16. It is needless to say that once income tax returns
are filed, they include all sources of income and constitute statutory
documents. There is a difference between the Assessment Year and the
Financial Year. Therefore, a mere discrepancy in Form No.16A cannot be a
ground to reduce the income or to disregard the statutory income-tax
documents produced on record. In this regard, reference may be made to
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United
India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. , reported in 2020 ACJ 526 (SC) ,
wherein it has been held that income-tax returns are statutory documents
and the income of the deceased ought to be considered as per the ITRs.
Consequently, the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/87/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
just and proper.
9. So far as the addition of 25% towards future prospects is concerned,
in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, since the age of
the deceased was more than 42 years, such addition is just and proper and
does not call for any interference. Further, as the deceased was married, the
Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses in
accordance with the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The
multiplier of 15 has also been correctly applied by the Tribunal. So far as the
compensation awarded under the conventional heads is concerned, the
same has also been rightly awarded, as Rs.70,000/- towards funeral
expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium.
10. So far as the appointment letter and employment of the deceased
are concerned, the evidence on record establishes that the deceased was
serving in a company named Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd. as a Boiler
Fitter, and a witness in this regard was also examined. Not only that, certain
employees were regularised and a labour dispute was raised before the
Labour Court, Surat, in IT Reference No.103 of 2001 seeking regular and
permanent status. They were treated as permanent employees, and the said
order was challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application No.5706
of 2014, wherein interim relief was granted by maintaining status quo. For
this reason, the deceased was allowed to continue as a workman with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/87/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
company. These facts have also emerged from the cross-examination and
the evidence led by the claimants. Hence, non-production of an
appointment letter is insignificant and does not have any bearing on the
merits of the case. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant is not sustainable.
9. For the foregoing reasons and observation, present appeal fails and is
hereby dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
