[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd vs Rameshbhai Vashrambhai Makwana on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/221/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 221 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
RAMESHBHAI VASHRAMBHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR SHIVRAJSINGH B RATHORE(10291) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 22/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 08.08.2022
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar
in MAC No. 454 of 2012.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.11.2012, deceased
Ranchhodbhai Raghubhai Pipariya was riding his motorcycle
bearing Registration No. GJ-10-AA-6624 from village Bhadara to
village Dhrol. At about 10:00 p.m., near village Lakhtak on the
Jodiya-Dhrol Highway, a tractor bearing Registration No. GJ-10-
K-1143 along with trolley bearing Registration No. GJ-10-U-1794
was parked on the road without any parking lights, indicators or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/221/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
reflectors, as a result of which the deceased collided with the
trolley from behind and met with an accident. The deceased
sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them during
treatment. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 53
years old and earning Rs. 6,14,098/- per annum from business,
agricultural activities and work as an LIC agent. FIR bearing
C.R. No. 48 of 2012 was registered against the driver of the
tractor at Jodiya Police Station. The petitioners, being the legal
representatives of the deceased, have claimed compensation on
the ground that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving on the part of the tractor driver and that respondent Nos.
1, 2 and 3, being the driver, owner and insurer respectively, are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with interest.
4. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
Tribunal failed to consider the admitted fact that the tractor
attached with the trolley was unloading clay, sand or gravel
while road-widening work was in progress at the site of the
accident. He submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the
offending vehicle was merely stationary without following traffic
regulations is misconceived and contrary to the police papers
relied upon by the claimants.
4.1 It was contended that the deceased was riding his two-
wheeler at excessive speed, his visibility was diminished and
despite applying brakes he could not control the vehicle so as to
avoid the accident at a place where road-widening work was in
progress. According to the learned advocate, the Tribunal ought
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/221/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
to have held the deceased solely negligent in causing the
accident by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The learned
advocate further submitted that the Tribunal erred while
considering the Income-tax Returns at Exh. 58 and 59,
inasmuch as income tax of Rs. 23,587/- and Rs. 56,868/-
respectively ought to have been deducted instead of Rs. 21,121/-
and Rs. 52,757/-. He also contended that the Tribunal erred in
awarding Rs. 88,000/- towards parental consortium to claimant
Nos. 2 and 3, who were major sons of the deceased on the date
of the accident, overlooking the settled position of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, reported
in (2018) 18 SCC 130.
4.2 The learned advocate further submitted that the Tribunal
overlooked the evidence at Exh. 74, 75, 76, 95, 97 and 98 and
erred in holding that opponent No. 1 was duly licensed to drive
the tractor attached with the trolley. He also submitted that the
Tribunal brushed aside the legal defence regarding permit on the
general ground that the vehicle was not being used for
commercial purposes, without considering the admitted fact that
it was being used on a contract basis for transporting road-
building material and was unloading clay, sand or gravel at the
site where road-widening work was in progress. It was therefore
prayed that the appeal be allowed.
5. On the contrary, learned advocates appearing for the
respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/221/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in
view of the evidence available on record. It was contended that
the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are based on
proper appreciation of evidence and hence no interference is
called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be
dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned
Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence in light of the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi v.
H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir
Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, along with the oral evidence at
Exh. 37 and 56, FIR at Exh. 47, panchanama at Exh. 48 and 49,
post-mortem report at Exh. 50, Village Form No. 8-A at Exh. 51,
driving licence at Exh. 53, income-tax returns at Exh. 58 to 60
and audit reports at Exh. 64 to 66. The present appeal has been
filed on the grounds of liability and negligence. However, the
involvement of the vehicle in the accident and the coverage of the
insurance policy are not in dispute.
7. So far as the aspect of negligence is concerned, upon perusal
of the panchanama, it appears that on the day of the accident
the deceased was riding a motorcycle and collided with a
stationary tractor. The tractor-trolley was parked on the public
road without giving any warning signal or indicator. The learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the tractor-trolley was
negligent to the extent of 85%, while the deceased had also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/221/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
contributed to the accident to the extent of 15%.
8. Since road-widening work was in progress at the relevant
time, the deceased was expected to exercise due care and
caution. However, considering the standard of care required in
such circumstances, the risk involved at a place where road-
widening work was ongoing and the natural visibility at the time
of the accident, it appears that the deceased was driving the
vehicle carefully. On the other hand, the tractor attached with
the trolley was stationed on the road in violation of rules and
without any indicator. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has
properly appreciated the aspect of contributory negligence and
no error is found in the said finding.
9. So far as the aspect of quantum is concerned, only one
ground has been raised, namely that the learned Tribunal has
assessed an exorbitant income of the deceased contrary to the
income-tax returns produced on record. According to the
claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 6,14,098/- per annum
and was also engaged in agricultural activities as well as working
as an LIC agent. In support thereof, PW-2 Rachitbhai
Virendrasinh, Inspector in the Income Tax Department, was
examined and the income-tax returns were produced on record.
After considering the overall evidence, the learned Tribunal
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,43,640/- per
annum.
10. The main grievance of the appellant is that, on the basis of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/221/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
the Income-tax Returns at Exh. 58 to 60, the Tribunal ought to
have deducted Rs. 23,587/- instead of Rs. 21,121/- and Rs.
56,868/- instead of Rs. 52,757/- respectively. Even if the said
contention is accepted, the difference in the amounts is marginal
and does not materially affect the calculation of compensation or
warrant interference.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed
any error in assessing the income of the deceased.
12. So far as the issue of driving licence is concerned, the RTO
witness at Exh. 74 was examined, the RTO record was produced
at Exh. 75 and the certified copy of the insurance policy was
produced at Exh. 34. It was contended that the driver of the
vehicle was not holding a valid licence to drive a transport
vehicle. However, the evidence indicates that the tractor was not
registered as a goods vehicle and therefore no transport
endorsement was required, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Devangan v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663.
13. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in
fastening liability upon the insurance company.
14. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, it
appears that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/221/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
and the insurance company has failed to establish its defence.
Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
15. If any amount is lying deposited before this Court, the same
shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith. There
shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return
the Record and Proceedings, if any, to the learned Tribunal
forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
