[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Natvarsinh M Zala vs Jethabhai Jesabhai Bharvad on 6 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1818 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NATVARSINH M ZALA & ORS.
Versus
JETHABHAI JESABHAI BHARVAD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 06/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the
impugned judgment and award dated 12.05.2016 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & 6 th
Additional District Judge, at Limbdi, in M.A.C.P. No. 186 of
2012 (Old M.A.C.P. No.613 of 2002), whereby the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.2,79,540/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation, and determined the negligence
of the offending truck and car in the ratio of 90:10.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the
captioned appeal, as explained by the learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
original claimants and as narrated in the Claim Petition are
summarized as under:-
i. On 28.01.2002, Ms. Chandrikaba (hereinafter
referred to as the "deceased") was travelling in a
car, as a passenger from Ahmedabad to Gondal.
The said car was being driven by original claimant
No.1, who is the husband of the deceased, at very
moderate speed and by observing traffic rules.
When they reached near Village Sayla, one truck
bearing registration No. GJ-6-U-7827, being
driven by original opponent No.2 came in a rash
and negligent manner and at an excessive speed
from the opposite side, and dashed with the car
on which the deceased was travelling. As a result
of the said vehicular accident, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and she succumbed to
the said injuries.
ii. It is the case of the original claimants/appellants
herein before the learned Tribunal that the
vehicular accident in question occurred due to the
negligence of the offending truck. It is also the
case of the original claimants/appellants before
the learned Tribunal that the deceased was aged
about 62 years and was a housewife and was
about to earn Rs.21,000/- per month as pension
from March, 2002. Therefore, the Original
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
Claimants/appellants herein preferred the Claim
Petition before the learned Tribunal seeking
compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of
the Claim Petition, original opponent No.1 -
owner of the truck and original opponent No.2 -
driver of the truck had chosen not to appear
before the learned Tribunal, while, the original
opponent No.3 - Insurer of the offending truck
and Original opponent No.4 - Insurer of the car
filed their respective Written Statements, thereby
denying the averments made in the Claim
Petition, and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the
Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties
and the material available on record, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues, for
determination:-
i. Whether it is proved that the deceased
sustained injuries and died on account of
rashness and negligence on the part of the
driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident ?
ii. What amount the claimants are entitled to
by way of compensation and from which of
the opponents ?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
iii. What order ?
v. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on
record and the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels for the respective parties, the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim
Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,79,540/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,
from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation and determined the
negligence of the offending truck and car in the
ratio of 90:10.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the original
claimants/appellants herein have preferred the
captioned appeal for enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that the
deceased was about to get the pension of 438 US Dollars from
March, 2002, which is equivalent to ₹ 21,000 INR at the time
of the accident. She further submitted that the original
claimants/appellants herein have proved the letter issued by
Social Security Department of U.S.A., at Exh.68, whereby, the
said pension of the deceased was ascertained. She contended
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
that ignoring all these evidence on record, the learned
Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at the time
of accident as Rs.2,000/- per month, which is contrary to the
evidence available on record. She further submitted that
though the deceased was survived by four legal
representatives at the time of the accident, the learned
Tribunal had committed a manifest error in deducting 1/3rd
instead of 1/4th of the monthly income on account of the
Personal expenses of the deceased. She further submitted that
the learned Tribunal had awarded meagre amount of
compensation under the head conventional heads, as such,
contended that the impugned judgment and award is required
to be modified. She further submitted that at the time of the
vehicular accident, the deceased was travelling as an
occupant in the car, as such, no negligence can be attributed
to her, however, the learned Tribunal had deducted 10% from
the awarded amount on account of the negligence of the
driver of the car, which is not permissible as per settled law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.3 - Insurer of the truck vehemently submitted
that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of
the deceased at the time of the accident as Rs.2,000/- per
month. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had
rightly deducted 1/3rd of the monthly income on account of
the Personal expenses of the deceased. He further submitted
that the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-
under the head of Loss of love & affection. He further
submitted that the learned Tribunal ought not to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
awarded any amount of compensation under the head of Loss
of love & affection in view of the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC
680. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had
awarded excessive amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/-
under the head of Loss of estate, as such, contended that the
compensation awarded under the said head is required to be
reduced to Rs.18,150/- in view of the ratio of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra). He further contended that the captioned appeal
preferred by the original claimants is devoid of any merits and
is liable to be dismissed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.4 - Insurer of the car adopted the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company. He further submitted that there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment and award and contended
that the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused the material
available on record, it is to be noted that the original
claimants/appellants herein have preferred the captioned
appeal challenging the impugned judgment and award on the
ground of quantum.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
8. So far as the quantum awarded by the learned Tribunal is
concerned, there is no dispute regarding the manner of
occurrence of accident or age of the deceased. At the time of the
accident, the deceased was 62 years old. So far as the income is
concerned, it is the case of the original claimants/appellants
herein that the deceased was entitled to get the pension of 438
US Dollars from March, 2002, which is equivalent to ₹ 21,000
INR at the time of the vehicular accident. The claimant
No.1/appellant No.1 - husband of the deceased in his affidavit
Exh.54 pleaded along with lines of the pleadings. Perusal of
the Exh.68 letter issued by the Social Security Department of
U.S.A. to the husband of the deceased would reveal that the
deceased was entitled for a pension of 438 US Dollars from
March, 2002. Thus, considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record, in my considered
view, the learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in
not considering the oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record. Thus, the income of the deceased at the
time of the vehicular accident is reassessed at Rs.21,000/- per
month.
9. It is on record that the deceased was aged about 62 years
at the time of the accident, therefore, original
claimants/appellants herein shall not be entitled to get any
increase in income on account of the future prospects of the
deceased.
10. It is also on record that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was survived by four legal representatives,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th
of the monthly notional income on account of the personal
expenses of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal vide
its impugned judgment and award had deducted 1/3rd of the
monthly income on account of the personal expenses of the
deceased. In my considered view, the deduction of 1/3rd of
the monthly income on account of the personal expenses of
the deceased is not sustainable. Therefore, after deducting
1/4th of the monthly income on account of the personal
expenses of the deceased, the monthly income for calculating
the Future loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,750/- (i.e.,
Rs.21,000/- minus 1/4th of Rs.21,000/-).
11. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of
accident, the multiplier of "7" is required to be applied.
Therefore, after applying the multiplier of "7", the original
claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for a sum of
Rs.13,23,000/- (i.e, Rs.15,750/- X 12 X multiplier of "7") under
the head of Future Loss of Dependency.
12. It is on record that the deceased was survived by four
legal representatives. Therefore, all the legal representatives
are entitled to get the compensation under the head of Loss of
consortium. However, the learned Tribunal had awarded a
meagre sum of Rs.60,000/- under the head of Loss of
consortium. Thus, in view of the ratio of judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- (i.e., Rs.48,400/- X 4) is awarded under
the head of Loss of Consortium.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
13. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and
award had awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the head of
Loss of love & affection. Since compensation has already been
awarded under the head of Loss of consortium, therefore, no
separate compensation is required to be awarded under the
head of Loss of love and affection in view of the ratio of
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra).
14. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-
under the head of Loss of estate. The said amount of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in
consonance with the ratio of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), as
such, the compensation awarded under the head of Loss of
estate is reduced to Rs.18,150/-. Further, the learned Tribunal
had awarded a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head
of Funeral Expenses. Thus, in view of the ratio of the
aforesaid judgment, compensation awarded under the head of
Funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.18,150/-.
15. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount
No. (in rupees)
1 Future Loss of 13,23,000/-
Dependency.
2 Loss of Consortium. (+) 1,93,600/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
3 Loss of Estate. (+) 18,150/-
4 Funeral Expenses. (+) 18,150/-
5 Total Compensation 15,52,900/-
16. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and
award had awarded Rs.2,79,540/- to the original
claimants/appellants herein. Therefore, original
claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for an additional
compensation to the tune of Rs.12,73,360/- (Rs.15,52,900
minus Rs.2,79,540/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the Claim Petition till realization. The said rate of interest is
maintained; accordingly, the original claimants/appellants
herein shall be entitled to 9% of interest per annum on the
additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of
the Claim Petition till its realization.
17. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, at the
time of the vehicular accident, the deceased was an occupant
in the car. The learned Tribunal had determined the
negligence of the offending truck and car in the ratio 90:10.
For the deceased, it is the case of composite negligence, as
such, no negligence can be attributed to the deceased.
However, the learned Tribunal had deducted 10% of the total
compensation on account of the negligence of the driver of the
car. The said finding returned by the learned Tribunal is
totally against the settled proposition of law laid by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan
& Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748, Pawan Kumar and
Another v. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal and Others reported in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1818/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
2014 (3) SCC 590 and Khenyei vs New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2015) 3 ACJ 1441. Thus, in view of
the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, Respondent Nos.3 & 4 -
Insurance Companies are held jointly and severally liable to
satisfy the award, including the additional amount of
compensation within six weeks from the date of this order.
18. Thus, In view of the above discussion, the impugned
judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent
and the captioned appeal stands allowed.
19. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal
shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the original
claimants/appellants herein (deducting deficit Court fee, if
any), after due verification.
20. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the
Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned
Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any
be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to
costs.
21. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN..
