Gujarat High Court
Limbuben Wd/O Mahendrabhai Rupsing ... vs Bhavsing Malji Vasava on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1654 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LIMBUBEN WD/O MAHENDRABHAI RUPSING GAMIT & ORS.
Versus
BHAVSING MALJI VASAVA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 19.09.2013 passed by MACP (Main), Tapi at Vyara passed in MAC petition No. 889/2002. The Tribunal by partly allowing the petition was pleased to award a sum of Rs. 3,64,000/- with 8% simple interest to the applicants from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation. The claimants No. 1 and 2 were held liable to make good the Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined compensation to the original-claimant whilst exonerating the original opponent no.3 Insurance company.
2. In the present appeal, the impugned judgment and award has been challenged on two counts. Firstly, the exoneration of the Insurance Company and the quantum as computed by the Tribunal.
3. Learned advocate Mr Hiren Modi arguing for the appellant has submitted that the accident is of 22.07.2002. He has submitted that undisputedly the accident happened as the concerned tractor, bearing Registration no. GJ-19-B-914 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased, i.e. one Mahendra Roop Singh Gamit, suffered an accident, as he, being a labourer on the said tractor, was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. The accident occurred as the tractor, owing to it being driven in rash and negligent manner, turned turtle and resultantly, the deceased ended up being crushed under the mudguard of the tractor Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined and succumbed to the injuries.
4. It was submitted that our own High Court in the case of First Appeal No. 269/2016, being the decision dated 18.11.2025 has taken a view, in similar circumstances, that the Insurance Company may not be exonerated on all counts and that the Insurance Company must first satisfy the award and thereafter, be at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner and driver of the tractor. It was submitted that in the said judgment, the learned single Judge was pleased to rely on earlier reported judgment in the case of First Appeal No. 3345/2011 and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of V. Renganathan and another Vs. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another, reported at 2003 ACJ 623.
5. It was submitted that in the present case also, the deceased was sitting on a mudguard of the tractor Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined and the tractor turned turtle and thus, the deceased crushed under the mudguard and as a result of the injuries so received, died. It was submitted that relying on the said judgment, this Court may also take a similar view. Additionally, the learned advocate has relied on the judgment in case of Shivaraj Vs Rajendra and another, reported at 2018 10 SCC 432, which was again referred to in R/First Appeal No. 269/2016 by this Court. It was submitted that in the said case the deceased was travelling as a loader in the tractor and suffered an accident. There too, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct to the insurance company first satisfy award and thereafter be at liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner.
6. It was next submitted that even on the assessment of compensation payable, the Tribunal is has only assessed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,64,000/-. It was submitted that the same is grossly Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined inadequate. It was submitted that even if the minimum wages of the deceased, (which, at the material time were to the tune of Rs. 2,200/- per month), were considered for the purpose of computing notional income of the deceased, then too, the yearly income of the deceased would be Rs. 26,400/- per annum. It was submitted that moreover, in terms of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi reported at (2017) 16 SCC 680, prospective income to the tune of 40% ought to have been awarded. It was submitted that accordingly, the income may be computed and that therefore, on addition of Rs. 10,560/-, the gross annual income would come to Rs. 36,900/-. It was submitted that looking to the facts/pleadings, as also the contents of the present appeal, it is plain that there are four dependents they being the wife, two minor children( who were minor at the time of lodging the claim petition) and the father of the deceased. It was submitted that as there are four dependents, 1/4th of Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the income of the deceased will have to be deducted towards personal expenditures in terms of the judgment in case of Sarla Verma. It was submitted that accordingly sum of Rs. 9,240/- may be deducted from Rs. 36,960/- being the annual income of the deceased. So deducted, a sum of Rs. 27,720/- would remain, which would be the multiplicand in the present matter.
7. Learned advocate further submitted that the Tribunal has taken the appropriate multiplier at 17, for the Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the deceased to be 28 years in terms of the post-mortem note Exhibit-48. Thus, the total Loss of Future Income would be Rs. 27,720 x 17 which is Rs. 4,71, 214/-. It was further submitted that apart from the same, under the conventional heads of compensation, a further sum of Rs. 48,400/- would be liable to be awarded to each of the original claimants-Appellants on account of Loss of Consortium. It was submitted accordingly, an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,93,000/- (being Rs. 48,400/- x Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
4) would be liable to be awarded. Furthermore, for the loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses a sum of Rs.18,150/- each, may be awarded, thus aggregating to Rs. 36,300/-. It was submitted that the sum total of all of the aforesaid would come to Rs. 7,01,140/-. It was thus submitted that the enhanced compensation would be Rs. 7,01,140/- minus Rs. 3, 64,000/- (being the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal), which would come to Rs. 3, 37,140/-. It was thus submitted that the same may kindly be awarded as enhanced compensation along with 9% simple interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the enhanced amount is deposited with the Tribunal.
8. It was further submitted that entire amount awarded under by the Tribunal as well as is also enhanced amount may be permitted to be recovered from the Insurance company with a liberty to the Insurance Company to recover it from the opponents No. 1 and 2.
Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
9. None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. Learned advocate Mr. M.R. Prajapati for Mr. V.C. Thomas, appearing for the Insurance Company, the Respondent No.3 herein, has vehemently opposed the present claim petition. It is submitted that there is a clear cut breach of policy and in terms of the applicable law, where there is a breach of policy, the exoneration of the Insurance company would follow. It was thus sumbitted that in the facts and circumstances when the Insurance company is liable to be exonerated, there is no question of Insurance company being made liable to first pay the compensation and thereafter being at liberty to recover it from the tort feasers. It was further submitted that in so far as the claim for enhanced compensation is concerned, indeed, he has verified the minimum wages as applicable during the period of accident .i.e. period around 22.07.2002 and that the said amount would be Rs. 2,200/- for skilled worker and Rs. 2,100/- each for unskilled and semi- Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined skilled worker. It was however submitted that in the present case, the Tribunal, being best suited to assess the notional income of the deceased by taking a holistic view of the matter, has rightly assessed the income. In the alternative, it was submitted that even if this Court was assessing notional compensation on the basis of minimum wages, the income of the deceased may be treated to be that of unskilled or semi-skilled worker and not as that of a skilled worker.
10. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to decide in terms of appearing hereinafter.
11. The point of determination that arises for consideration of this Court in the present matter is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, whether the Insurance Company is liable to first satisfy the award amount and then be at liberty to recover it from the tort feasers,i.e. driver and owner of the vehicle, despite there being a breach of Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined policy condition? And further, whether the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable? If not, what is compensation that is liable to be awarded in the facts of the present case?
12. At the outset, there is no dispute that the seating capacity of the concerned vehicle-tractor is one. Therefore, on the basis of the undisputed facts, the deceased, in sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, prima facie appears to have committed a breach of policy condition. Even otherwise in terms of the decision this Court in R/First Appeal No. 269/2016, in a similar factual situation, the Insurance Company has been held to first satisfy the award and thereafter to be at liberty to recover the same from the owner and the driver of the tractor.
13. Most importantly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, too, in case of Shivaraj Vs Rajendra and Others reported at 2018 10 SCC 482, and other decisions of this Court, being the decision in First Appeal No. Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 3345/2011 and the reported decision of this Court in the case of United India Company Limited Vs Manjulaben Purshottamdas Patel and Ors. reported at 1994(1) GLR 269 indicate that the Apex Court and this Court respectively, have held in similar situations that the Insurance Company is liable at the first instance to satisfy the award and thereafter, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner and the driver involved in the accident.
14. Looking to the said ratios and the fact that the factual aspects in those matters were similar to that in the present matter, this Court is also of the view that a similar order would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and that therefore, the Insurance Company is directed at the first instance to satisfy the award and thereafter be at liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Thus, as against the finding of the Tribunal to fully Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined exonerate the insurance company, the insurance company shall be liable to the foregoing extent.
15. In so far as the compensation is concerned, this Court, has noticed that the Tribunal had taken the notional monthly income of the deceased at about Rs. 1,666.7/- per month. The said income seems slightly on the lower side and thus this Court is inclined to fall on the Minimum Wages, as existing during the said period. However, whilst adjudicating the said notional monthly income, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a labourer on a tractor would be a unskilled worker for the purposes of ascertainity the applicable minimum wages. Therefore, the applicable minimum wage would be that of an unskilled worker. Thus, in terms of the minimum wage notifications as applicable in the year 2002, the minimum wages of such a worker would be Rs. 2,200/- per month. So computed, the amount of yearly compensation would Rs. 2,200 x12 which is Rs. 26,400/-. Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Furthermore, in terms of the ratio in case of Pranay Shethi (supra), a 40% increase would have to be given on account of future prospective income, in terms of paragraph 59.4 of the judgment in Pranay Shethi (supra) more so when there is no dispute asto the age of the deceased being 28 years at the time of the accident. The relevant paragraph therein reads as follows:-
" In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
16. So computed, the amount toward future prospective inocme would be Rs.10,560/- which added to the yearly income computed earlier, would be to Rs. Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 36,960/-. As rightly argued by the learned advocate for the appellant, here the dependents are four in number and that therefore, 1/4th of the yearly income will have to be deducted. In this context, this Court has relied on paragraph 14 of the judgment of Sarla Verma and Others Versus Delhi Transportation Corporation and Another being the decisions dated April 15,2009 in Civil Appeal No. 3483/2008. The relevant para reads thus:
"14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standarized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
17. So deducted, the sum arrived at would be Rs.27,720/-. The said amount would be the multiplicand in the present matter. To that a multiplier of 17 in terms of the ratio as contained in para 21of Sarla Verma (supra) will have to be applied. The said paragraph is quoted hereinbelow for the case of reference:-
"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in the column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), Which starts with an operative multiplier of
18 (for the age froups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
18. Thus, so multiplying, an amount of Rs.4,71,240/- would be arrived at. Furthermore, towards the compensation for the loss of consortium, a sum of Rs. Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 48,400/- will have to be awarded to each of the claimants/appellants separately. Thus, an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,93,600/- would be awarded towards Loss of Consortium. Similarly, towards Loss of Estate and funeral expenses a sum of Rs. 18150/- each will have to be awarded. Thus, the aggregate amount under the headings of Loss of Estate and funeral expenses would be Rs. 36,300/-.
Hence, the following amount of compensation is awarded to the appellant/claimant:
Sr. Particulars Amount Amount
No. awarded by determined
the learned by this Court
Tribunal (in Rs.)
1 Future Loss of 3,34,000/- 4,71,240/-
Income
2 Loss of Consortium 15,000/- 1,93,600/-
(Rs.48,400 X
4)
3 Loss of Estate 10,000/- 18,150/-
4 Funeral Expenses 5,000/- 18,150/-
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
Total 3,64,000/- 7,01,140/-
Less: Amount 3,64,000/-
already awarded by
the learned Tribunal
Amount enhanced Rs.3,37,140
by this Court /-
Adding all of the aforesaid, the sum arrived would be Rs. 7,01,140/-. Thus, the enhanced amount would be Rs. 3,37,140/-.
19. It has been contended by the learned advocate for the respondent that banking interest have reduced drastically, since past few years and that therefore, the present banking interest may be awarded on the enhanced compensation. On the other hand, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the interest rate both on the enhanced award and the original compensation granted by the Tribunal may be awarded at 9% simple interest per annum. Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
20. This Court in view of the above submission is of the view that it would be just if the interest at 9% per annum is awarded on the enhanced amount. The reason being that for an accident of the year 2002, the enhanced compensation is being awarded in the year 2025. Furthermore, looking to the inflationary trends, that has been in existence, the purchasing power of the money has decreased considerably. To mitigate the same, it is only natural that interest at appropriate rate.i.e. 9% per annum, be awarded so that the purchase power of the rupees, even if awarded to the appellant at a belated stage, does not decrease.
21. In the cricumstances, the present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent, the Insurance is directed to pay first satisfy the award and thereafter be at liberty to recover the said amount from the Respondent No. 1 and 2 hearing.
22. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount as awarded together with interest at 9% per annum in its entirety within eight weeks of the Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1654/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined availability of the signed copy of this judgment, more so when it is a statement at bar by the learned advocate for the appellant that no amount has so far been received by the claimants despite the allowing of the claim petition to the limited extent as aforesaid, by the Tribunal.
23. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire enhanced amount together with interest no sooner the insurance company deposits that same with the Tribunal. It is clarified by abundant caution that no fresh FDRs shall be issued in respect of the amount so deposited.
24. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
25. R & P be forthwith remitted back to the Tribunal.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J) RIYA VISHWAKARMA Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:25:03 IST 2025