Gujarat High Court
Chaudhary Prakeshbhai Nathabhai vs New India Insurance Company Limited on 11 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2168 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHAUDHARY PRAKESHBHAI NATHABHAI
Versus
NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAYUR RAJGURU(1198) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
KRUPALI N BHATT(9455) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 11/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-II), at Mahesana, in M.A.C.P. No. 211 of 2005, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.59,040/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation, however, the learned Tribunal had deducted 70% of the awarded amount on account of the self negligence of the claimant/appellant himself.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal, as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined i. On 26.07.2004 at about 5:30 a.m., the original claimant/appellant herein was driving a truck bearing registration No.GJ-3U-5102 from Visnagar to Baroda. When he reached near the place of the accident, one truck bearing registration No.MH-12-AR-7745 came from the opposite side, at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed with the truck driven by the original claimant/appellant herein, thereby causing the accident. As a result of the said vehicular accident, the original claimant/appellant herein sustained grievous injuries to his body.
ii. It is the case of the original claimant/appellant herein before the learned Tribunal that at the time of the vehicular accident, he was aged about 27 years, and was earning Rs.2,500/- per month, by working as a driver. It is also the case of the original claimant/appellant herein before the learned Tribunal that he was treated as an indoor and outdoor patient for a considerable period of time, due to the injuries sustained in the vehicular accident. Therefore, the Original Claimant/appellant herein preferred the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, original opponent No.2/respondent No.1 Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined herein - Insurer of the offending truck and the original opponent No.4/respondent No.2 herein - Insurer of the truck driven by the claimant/appellant herein, 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 the rashness or negligent driving on the part of the driver/s of the vehicle/s involved in the accident?
ii. What amount, if any, the claimant/s is/are entitled to, by way of compensation and from which of the opponents ?
iii. What order and decree?
v. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record and the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.59,040/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation, however, the learned Tribunal had Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined deducted 70% of the awarded amount on account of the self negligence of the claimant/appellant himself.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimant/appellant herein has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum as well as the deduction of 70% of the awarded amount on account of self negligence of the claimant/appellant herein.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Mayur Rajguru, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted that at the time of the vehicular accident, the claimant/appellant herein was working as a driver, however, the learned Tribunal while determining the compensation, observed that the claimant/appellant was a cleaner, and therefore assessed the monthly income of the claimant/appellant herein at a lower side. He further submitted that though the claimant had sustained the Permanent Partial Disability of 30%, however, the learned Tribunal had considered the functional disability at 8%. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the claimant/appellant herein though at the time of the vehicular accident, he was aged about 30 years. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded meagre amounts of compensation under the head of Pain, shock & suffering, Special Diet, Transportation & Attendant charges. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of Actual loss of income. Therefore, he prayed for Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the risk of the claimant was duly covered under the insurance policy, however, the learned Tribunal had 70% of the awarded amount on account of self negligence of the claimant. He further submitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured, wherein, the insurance company has charged the premium for the driver. As such, he contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal ought not to have been deducted on account of self negligence of the claimant/appellant herein. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant herein rendered by the full bench of this High Court in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/o Late Laxmanbhai Ramsinghbhai Thakore (Koli) vs Kandla Dock Labour Board reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243219. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant herein submitted that the learned Tribunal had committed manifest error in deducting 70% of the awarded amount on account of self negligence of the claimant/appellant herein. He further submitted that the captioned appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded just compensation under all the heads, as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, therefore, the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Krupali N. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2- Insurance Company vehemently submitted that at the time of the vehicular accident, the minimum wages as notified by the State Government of Gujarat was Rs.2,300/- per month, as such, the learned Tribunal had not committed Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined any error in considering the notional monthly income of the claimant/appellant herein as Rs.2,000/- per month in the absence of any proof of income. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded just compensation under all the heads. She further submitted that the claimant/appellant himself was held negligent to the extent of 70%, therefore, contended that the learned Tribunal had rightly deducted 70% of the awarded amount on account of self negligence of the claimant/appellant herein. Therefore, she contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, as such, 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 claimant/appellant herein has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum as well as the deduction of 70% of the awarded amount on account of self negligence.
8. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is not in dispute that at the time of vehicular accident, it is not in dispute that at the time of the vehicular accident, the claimant/appellant herein was aged about 30 years and he was working as a driver. He pleaded in the Claim Petition that he was earning Rs.2,500/- per month. He has also deposed before the learned Tribunal along with lines of pleadings, however, the learned Tribunal considered that the claimant/appellant herein was working as a cleaner instead of a driver, and considered his income as Rs.2,000/- per month. As on the date of vehicular accident, the minimum monthly wages as per the notification of State Government of Gujarat for such a Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined skilled worker was Rs.2,300/- per month. It is not in dispute that the claimant was not a qualified driver. His driving license has been proved on record at Exh.50. Perusal of the said Driving License transpires that he was holding a valid driving license to drive LMV, HGV & HPV vehicles, as such, the income pleaded by the claimant in the Claim Petition appears to be genuine. Hence, the monthly income of the claimant/appellant herein at the time of the vehicular accident is reassessed at Rs.2,500/- per month.
9. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the original claimant/appellant herein was aged about 30 years, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the notional monthly income of the original claimant/appellant herein is required to be enhanced by 40%. Therefore, after adding 40% of the notional income to the monthly income of the claimant/appellant herein, the monthly income of the claimant/appellant herein would come to the tune of Rs.3,500/- (i.e, Rs.2,500/- plus 40% of Rs.2,500/-).
10. The Injury Certificate of the claimant has been proved at Exh.40. Perusal of the Injury Certificate transpires that the claimant/appellant herein has sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of tibia and fabula of right leg. The Dr. Kamlesh Gurjar has certified that the claimant/appellant herein has sustained the Permanent Partial Disability of 30%. Therefore, the disability body as a whole would come to 15%. However, the learned Tribunal has considered the functional disability of 8%. The claimant/appellant herein is a driver by profession and he Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined had sustained the fracture of tibia and fabula of his right leg, therefore, in my considered view, the work of the claimant/appellant herein would have been substantially suffered on account of the disability sustained by the claimant. Therefore, I consider the functional disability at 15%. Thus, considering the functional disability of the claimant at 15%, and after applying the multiplier of "17" as per the age of the original claimant/appellant herein, the Future loss of income would come to Rs.1,07,100/- (i.e., Rs.3,500/- X 15% functional disability X multiplier of "17" X 12 months).
11. The learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.17,400/- under the head of Medical expenses. The said amount was awarded on the basis of medical bills produced on record, as such, no interference is required under this head and accordingly, the compensation awarded under this head is maintained.
12. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagure amount of Rs.5,000/- under the Pain, shock & suffering. Perusal of the records transpires that the claimant has sustained various injuries, including fracture of tibula and fabula of right leg. He underwent treatment as an indoor as well as outdoor patient for a considerable period of time. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant/ appellant herein and having regard to the attending circumstances, the compensation awarded under this head is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-.
13. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of compensation under the head of Special Diet, Transportation & Attendant charges. Considering the medical evidence available on Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined record, the compensation awarded under this head is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-.
14. Though the claimant has sustained several other bodily injuries apart from fracture of tibia and fibula of right leg, the learned Tribunal had not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of Actual loss of income. It is quite obvious that owing to the fractures sustained in the vehicular accident, the claimant/appellant herein could have not attended his work for atleast three months. Thus, the actual loss of income is awarded for a period of three months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.7,500/- (i.e., Rs.2,500/- X 3 months) is awarded under the head of Actual loss of income.
15. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimant/appellant shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount in rupees.
No.
1 Future Loss of income. 1,07,100/-
2 Pain, shock & sufferings. (+) 15,000/-
Special diet,
3 Transportation & (+) 15,000/-
Attendant charges.
4 Medical Expenses (+) 17,400/-
5 Actual loss of income. (+) 7,500/-
(for three months)
6 Total Compensation 1,62,000/-
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,62,000/-. The learned Tribunal had deducted 70% of the awarded amount on account of the self negligence of the claimant/appellant herein. At the time of the vehicular accident, the claimant was driving a truck bearing registration No.GJ-3U-5102. The said vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No.2 - National Insurance Company Limited. The insurance policy of the said truck has been proved at Exh.37. Perusal of the said insurance Policy transpires that respondent No.2 - National Insurance Company Limited has charged the premium of Rs.100 to cover the risk of "Compulsory PA to Owner cum Driver"
and has also charged the premium of Rs.200/- to cover the risk of "WC to employee 8". Therefore, the risk of the claimant/driver was duly covered under the policy. The issue as to whether the claimant/appellant herein can recover compensation from the Insurer of his own vehicle is no more res integra, as the same has been dealt in the case ofValiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) (supra), wherein the full bench of this High Court at para 13 & 15 had observed as under :-
"13. Thus, when the owner of a vehicle pay additional premium and same is accepted by the Insurance Company, liability of the Insurance Company gets extended under the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 147 of the Act clearly prescribes for statutory liability to cover risk of paid Driver and Conductor under the Insurance Policy, which is a matter of contract. On payment of such additional premium by the owner, the liability of the owner shifts upon the Insurance Company. Thus, the risk of paid Driver and Conductor would be covered under the Insurance Policy. Only when the additional premium is not paid, liability would be as per the Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and in such cases, compensation would be computed as prescribed under the Act which is limited to the extent provided under provisions of the Act. However, when owner pays additional premium to cover the legal liability of his paid driver and conductor to the Insurance Company, as such, the Insurance Company is enlarging the scope for unlimited liability for payment of compensation, when additional premium is accepted. The liability of the Insurance Company gets extended and it has no right to raise issue of self negligence or otherwise of the such class of the driver of the Insured vehicle. By accepting additional premium as per the IMT 28, the Insurance Company expressed its willingness to extend its liability under the Clause of Legal Liability to the Paid driver and conductor as envisaged under Section 147 of the Act. Thus, in our opinion, Insurance Company has no legal right to avoid its legal liability under the indemnity clause arising from the contract of insurance towards the insured - owner of such classes of vehicles.
............................................................... ............................................................... ....................
15. In our opinion, by accepting additional premium, the Insurance Company indemnifies the owners for paid Driver and / or Conductor and risk of Driver / Conductor is covered under it. Upon death or injury caused to the paid Driver and / or Conductor, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy such claim irrespective of the self negligence. Thus, the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya & Anr (supra) Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined lays down the correct law. Reference is thus, answered accordingly."
17. Thus, considering the ratio laid down by the full bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 70% of the awarded amount on account of self negligence of the claimant/appellant herein. Hence, the claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled to get the total compensation to the tune of Rs.1,62,000/-. The compensation already paid shall be given due credit. Thus, the claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled to receive the balance amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. The said rate of interest is maintained; accordingly, the original claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled to 7.5% of interest per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
18. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent and the captioned appeal preferred by the original claimant stands partly allowed.
19. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 - Insurance Companies shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest within a period of six weeks from today, in the ratio of their negligence as decided by the learned Tribunal. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the original claimant/appellant herein (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2168/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined
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 Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 12 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 12 22:46:31 IST 2026