Gujarat High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Harilal Ravabhai Gagal on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2260 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 17 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
HARILAL RAVABHAI GAGAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4,5
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 16/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Both the captioned appeals are filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 04.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-III), Bhuj at Kachchh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.594 of 2003, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.26,27,300/- along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeals are that on 18.08.2003, at about 07:30 in the morning, deceased- Jitendrasinh Jadeja was repairing the tanker bearing registration No.GQY-4867 at Anjar- Varsamedi Road (near the Bone Factory) left hand side of the road by litting necessary indicators and parking obstructions. In the meantime, the opponent No.1 the driver of the truck bearing registration No.GJ- 12-U-9150 came from Bhimasar-Chakasar area in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed by ignoring the traffic rules. As a result of which, the driver of the truck lost control over the truck and dashed with the tanker from behind, which was lying stationary on the side of the road. Due to the impact of the said accident, Jitendrasinh Jadeja sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries.
2.1. Having been served with the notice of claim petition, the opponent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed Written Statement, thereby denying the contents of the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
2.2. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exhibit-33, for determination.
"1. Whether the applicant prove the deceased died due to rash and/or negligent act of the driver of vehicle involved in the accident, while in course of employment of the owner of the vehicle involved?
2. Whether the applicant are entitled to compensation from the opponent or any of them? If yes, what amount and from whom?Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined
3. What award?"
2.3. Having considered the pleadings of parties, oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record and the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.26,27,300/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
2.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum while the original claimants has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum as well as the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that the income of the deceased was not proved on record, however, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,88,540/- per annum. He further submitted that the claimant has examined one Mr. Rahul Jagannnath Kulkarni at Exhibit-41, in order to prove the income. The said witness has produced on record the statement of payment from 2001 to 2003. Perusal of the statement of payment transpires that the payment was made to M/s Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined Ashapura Water Supply. He further submitted that the approval of the tender proved on record at Exhibit-43 suggests that it was approved in favour of the M/s Ashapura Water Supply. He further submitted that it has not been proved on record as to whether M/s Ashapura Water Supply was the sole proprietary firm of Mr. Jadeja Jitendrasinh(deceased). He further submitted that the TDS certificate proved at Exhibit-54 further suggests that it was issued in the name of M/s Ashapura Water Supply of Mr. Jadeja Jitendrasinh, therefore, it has not been made clear that as to whether Mr. Jadeja Jitendrasinh was the sole proprietor of the firm or the other partners were also engaged in the business. He further submitted that as per the case of the claimants, the deceased was doing the business under the name and style of M/s Ashapura Water Supply since long, however, no income-tax-return has been proved on record in order to establish the income of the deceased.
4.1. Learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that the TDS certificates proved at Exhibits-56 to 60 were also issued in the name of M/s Ashapura Water Supply, Mr. Jadeja Jitendrasinh. He further submitted that the proof of income produced on record nowhere connects that the said Mr. Jadeja Jitendrasinh was the sole proprietor of the firm. He further submitted that it is not proved on record whether M/s Ashapura Water Supply was a sole proprietary firm or a partnership firm. He further submitted that the nexus between the M/s Ashapura Water Supply and the deceased was not proved on record. Therefore, the documents produced on record at Exhibits-42, 43, 54, 56, 57 & 58 cannot be considered as the Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined proof of income of the deceased. He further submitted that at the time of the accident, the exempted income for income-tax was Rs.50,000/- and the claimants have not proved any income-tax- return on record, therefore, the income of the deceased by any stretch of imagination cannot be considered beyond Rs.50,000/- per annum. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Fulshankar Umiyashankar Pandit through heirs Versus Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation & Ors ( First Appeal No.4149 of 2007) decided on 07.04.2015. Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the income of the deceased ought not to have been considered beyond Rs.50,000/- per annum.
4.2. Learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that the learned Tribunal had considered the annual average income of the deceased at Rs.2,88,540/-. He further submitted that it was not proved on record that out of this income how much of this income was spent on the expense of the business of the alleged firm/proprietorship concerned. However, the learned Tribunal has considered the annual income at Rs.2,88,540/- without any basis. In absence of any cogent evidence of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages for calculating the loss of dependency, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is required to be modified accordingly.
Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined
5. Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants/appellants, vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal had decided the issue of negligence on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal held the deceased himself negligent to the extent of 40% for causing the accident. He further submitted that it is the case of the claimants/appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased had parked the truck bearing registration No.GQY-4867 at the roadside and he was repairing the said truck. The driver of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-U- 9150 came from behind at excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed into the truck of the deceased from behind and resultantly, the deceased who was repairing the truck sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. He further submitted that the claimant No.1 said Smt. Prafulaba Jadeja Jitendrasinh stepped into the witness-box and deposed along with the lines of pleadings. He further submitted that the FIR and the panchnama also supported the version of the claimants. He further submitted that the driver of the offending truck i.e. respondent No.1 had not stepped into witness-box to rebut the version of the claimant. Therefore, in absence of any rebuttal, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the adverse inference against the respondent No.1, however, the learned Tribunal ignoring all these aspects, determined the negligence of the deceased to the extent of 40% and the negligence of the respondent No.1 to the extent of 60%. He further submitted that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified.
Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined 5.1. Learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants further submitted that the claimants/appellants have proved on record the income of the deceased by leading the cogent evidence. He further submitted that the widow of the deceased i.e. claimant No.1 stepped into witness-box and she proved that at the time of accident, her husband was doing the business under the name and style of M/s Ashapura Water Supply. He used to supply the said water to BPCL from the year 1997 till the date of accident. He further submitted she has also proved the income of the deceased. She was cross-examined but nothing material came on record which is favourable to the Insurance Company.
5.2. Learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants further submitted that the claimants have also examined Mr. Rahul Jagannnath Kulkarni at Exhibit-41. He proved that the deceased used to supply the water to BPCL. He also proved the statement of payment at Exhibit-42, contract of water supply at Exhibit-43 and TDS certificates at Exhibits-56, 57, 58, 59 & 60. He further submitted that the evidence of income clearly established on record that the deceased was carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s Ashapura Water Supply.
5.3. Learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants further submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the annual income for the last two years and thereafter calculated the average income and determined the annual income at Rs.7,21,348/-. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had deducted Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined 50% on account of expenses and thereafter, the learned Tribunal had deducted 20% on account of income-tax. He further submitted that once the learned Tribunal had deducted the expenses from the income, then the learned Tribunal ought not to have deducted 20% of the amount on account of income-tax. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had committed a manifest error in deducting 20% on account of income-tax.
5.4. Learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the evidence of income. He further submitted that merely non filing of the income-tax-return would not suffice to ignore the material evidence of income on record. In support his contention, learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the First Appeal No.4160 of 2017 titled as Jagrutiben Harishbhai Parmar Versus Mahadeva Bachubhai Ayar (Gajariya) decided on 02.08.2018. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr., reported in 2009 (06) SCC 121, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130. Having Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6. In rebuttal, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that the learned Tribunal had not committed any error in holding the deceased contributorily negligent to the extent of 40%. He further submitted that the deceased parked his truck on the road without observing the traffic rules and without keeping the indicator on or putting any obstruction to avoid the accident. He further submitted that the record itself speaks that both the driver had contributorily negligent for causing the accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the issue of negligence, therefore, the captioned appeal preferred by the original claimants/appellants is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum while the original claimants/appellants filed the appeal thereby challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum as well as the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence.
8. So far as the negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence such Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined as FIR and panchnama of place of accident came to the conclusion that the deceased as well as the driver of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-U-9150 is contributorily negligent for causing the accident and decided the negligence in the ratio of 40:60 respectively. On perusal of the record, it transpires that it is the case of the claimants that the accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the opponent No.1 as he came at excessive speed and dashed into the tanker of the deceased from behind. The claimant No.1-herein, Prafulaba Jitendrasinh Jadeja filed her affidavit in examination-in-chief along with the lines of pleadings. But in cross-examination she admitted that she is not an eye-witness to the accident. Therefore, on the point of negligence her deposition is of no use. The FIR proved on record at Exhibit-45 also transpires that the said FIR is also filed by one Ramsangji Hemantsangji who is also not the eye-witness of the accident, therefore, the FIR was also came to be lodged on the hearsay version. On perusal of the panchnama of place of accident, it transpires that the tanker of the deceased was damaged from the driver's side while the truck was damaged from the front portion of the cleaner's side. Perusal of the entire panchnama does not reveal the actual position of the truck before the accident or after the accident. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was repairing his tanker by parking the said tanker on the roadside. The panchnama does not reveal that at the time of accident, the indicators were turned on or that any obstruction was put to avoid the accident. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the deceased as well as the driver of the truck were contributorily negligent for causing the accident. Hence, the learned Tribunal had not Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined committed any error in holding the deceased himself negligent to the extent of 40% and the driver of the offending truck was negligent to the extent of 60%. The findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of negligence requires no interference and the same is upheld.
9. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of income. So far as the income is concerned, it is the case of the original claimants/appellants that at the time of accident, the deceased was doing the business of transport under the name and style of M/s Ashapura Water Supply and he used to supply the water to BPCL. PW-1 Prafulaba Jitendrasinh Jadeja in his affidavit at Exhibit-34 deposed that BPCL had paid a total sum of Rs.8,10,131/- for the period of 29.05.2002 till 31.03.2003 and also deposed that after deducting 50% amount on account of expenses, the monthly income of the deceased was of Rs.40,000/-. She was cross-examined by the learned advocate for the Insurance Company. In the cross-examination, she admitted that the claimants have not placed on record the PAN Card and the Income-tax-return of the deceased. The claimants have also examined Mr. Rahul Jagannnath Kulkarni at Exhibit- 41 in order to prove the income. He deposed that he is working as a operation manager in BPCL. He also placed on record the statement of payment at Exhibit-42, the extension of contract for supply of water at Exhibit-43 and TDS certificates at Exhibits- 54, 56, 57, 58, 59 & 60. On perusal of the detail of payments placed on record, it transpires that during the year commencing from January 2002 till December 2002, the BPCL has made the Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined payment of Rs.7,84,700/- and the year commencing from January 2003 to December 2003 the BPCL has made the payment to the tune of Rs.6,57,996/-. The letter dated 16.09.2003 placed at Exhibit-43 transpires that the BPCL has further extended the contract to supply the water. The TDS certificate placed at Exhibit-54 transpires that the company had paid a certain amount from the month of May 2002 till March 2003 after deducting the TDS. The TDS certificates placed at Exhibit-56, 57, 58, 59 & 60 also transpires that BPCL has deducted the TDS. Thus, it is evident from the oral testimony of PW-2 and the supporting documents placed on record transpires that M/s Ashapura Water Supply used to supply the water to BPCL and BPCL has made the payment to the said firm. It has been argued on behalf of Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that the claimants could not prove on record that M/s Ashapura Water Supply was the sole proprietary firm or the partnership firm of the deceased. Perusal of the TDS certificate transpires that BPCL has described the name of the supplier in the TDS certificate as M/s Ashapura Water Supply, Jadeja Jitendrasinh, Taluka-Anjar. Thus, the description of the supplier in the TDS creats no iota of doubt that the deceased was carrying the business under the name and style of M/s Ashapura Water Supply.
10. The claimants/appellants have also proved the statement of account of the firm maintained at Syndicate Bank, Gandhidham Branch. The entry of payment is also reflected in the statement of account, therefore, the payment made by BPCL Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined was the actual payment and not the mere entry. Therefore, the evidence of income produced on record cannot be doubted.
11. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the Insurance Company that the claimants/appellants could not prove how much the expenses was incurred in doing the business, therefore, in absence of any proof of expenses and not filing the income-tax-return, the learned Tribunal ought not to have considered the income of the deceased more than Rs.50,000/- as on the date of accident the exempted income as per income-tax was of Rs.50,000/-, therefore, the income of the deceased would have been less than Rs.50,000/-. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fulshankar Umiyashankar Pandit(supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed in paragraph-5 as under:-
"5. We have gone through the reasons recorded by the Tribunal and we have considered the record and proceedings. It is an admitted position that the deceased though was a self-employed person having sales tax registration and having bank account with Vijaya Co-operative Bank Ltd., but had not filed any income tax return prior to the date of the accident. After the date of the accident, wife of the deceased had filed income tax return showing income of Rs. 1,14,885/-. The said return is filed on 1-10-1999. Whereas, the date of the accident is 20-5-1999. We may also record that in the respective accounting year, the exempted income was of Rs. 50,000/-. In normal circumstances, if one is not paying income tax though he may be doing business or earning salary from any private firm, the income can reasonably be considered upto the exemption limit. As in the present case, it was yearly Rs. 50,000/-, income per month can be considered at Rs. 4,166/- and could be rounded at Rs. 4,200/- per month as against Rs. 36,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal."Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined
12. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment, in my considered view, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case on hand, the ample evidences were led by the claimants/appellants on record. The details of payment proved on record at Exhibit-42 is also supported by the TDS certificate as well as the statement of account at Exhibit-55, therefore, the receiving of amount from BPCL on account of water supply cannot be doubted. Now, so far as the non filing of income-tax is concerned, learned advocate for the claimants/appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagrutiben Harishbhai Parmar(supra), wherein the Court has observed in paragraph-5 as under:-
"5. We have perused the evidence produced by the claimants. In connection with the deceased's business of cable T.V., the claimants had examined his brother Kishorbhai Shantibhai Parmar at Exh.76. He deposed that the deceased was running such business in the name of prince cables. In village Kukma; he had 250 customer connections. There were 74 connections in village:Mamuaara and 56 in village:Sugaria. Per connection, he would collect Rs.60 per month. He produce a receipt of Rs.500/- paid by the deceased on 04.10.1995 to the Government by way of fees for cable dish operator business. He further stated that his brother was running a refreshment stall called Parmar Tea House. He also sold sugarcane juice in the name of Parmar Sugarcane House. He produced the Government registration for operating food store. He also produced receipts of various purchases of provisions made by his brother. For example, he had produced a receipt of purchase of Rs.1,05,000/- from Meghdut Enterprise during the year 199798. He produced a receipt of purchase of Rs.41,805/- of parle biscuits from Sharda Enterprise between July 1998 to July 1999. He produced bills worth Rs.60,000/- for purchase of chocolates, candy, soaps, toothpastes etc., from R.K.Traders of Bhuj during the period between 1996 to 1999. He also produced receipts of purchases of Rs.75,000/- of sundry items from one Dipak General Store between the year 1997 to 1999.Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined He also produced the purchase bills for tea from M/s. RD & Co. worth Rs.61,046/-."
13. Now, adverting to the facts of the case, the wife of the deceased i.e. PW-1 has proved on record that her husband was doing the business of water supply under the name and style of M/s Ashapura Water Supply and her version was also supported by PW-2 the officer of BPCL who stepped into witness-box and proved that the deceased was used to supply the water to BPCL. His version was not oral but was also supported by Exhibit-42, 43, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 & 59. Therefore, there is no iota of doubt that the gross income of the deceased during the year 2002 and 2003 was not Rs.7,84,700/- and Rs.6,57,996/- respectively. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the average income of both the year and assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.7,21,348/-.
14. It has been argued on behalf of the learned advocate for the Insurance Company that the expenses of the business was not proved on record, therefore, the net income of the deceased was not proved. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award more particularly on page No.15 would show that the learned Tribunal has taken care of each and every aspect and deducted 50% of the annual income on account of expenses of the business and thereafter determined the net income at Rs.3,60,674/-. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had deducted 20% of the income on account of income-tax. It has been argued on behalf of the original claimants/appellants, once the learned Tribunal had deducted 50% of the income on account of expenses of the business, the learned Tribunal ought not to have deducted 20% Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined of the income on account of income-tax. I am of the considered view that the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants is not sustainable as the income-tax is also to be calculated on the basis of net income. Hence, the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants is not sustainable.
15. The learned Tribunal after deducting 20% on account of income-tax, assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,88,540/-. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the annual income of the deceased. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 31 years old, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the income on account of the future prospects of the deceased. Thus, after adding 40% to the annul income, which would come to Rs.4,03,956/- (2,88,540 + 40% of 2,88,540). It is on record that the deceased was survived by three legal representatives, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 of the annual income on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Therefore, no interference is required under this head.
16. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. The compensation awarded under the aforesaid heads is enhanced to Rs.18,150/-.
Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined
17. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. It is evident from the record that the deceased was survived by three legal representatives, therefore, all the claimants are entitled to get the compensation under the head of loss of consortium in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram(supra). Hence, a sum of Rs.1,45,200/- (48400 x 3) is awarded under the head of loss of consortium.
18. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the original claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 43,08,864/-
Loss of Consortium 1,45,200/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Total 44,90,364/-
(40% self negligence) 17,96,146/-
Total 26,94,218/-
Less: compensation already awarded by the 26,27,300/-
learned Tribunal
Additional amount of compensation 66,918/-
19. This Court has held that the deceased himself was negligent for causing the accident to the extent of 40%. Therefore, 40% of the total compensation is deducted on account Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined of self negligence of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting 40% from the total compensation, which would come to Rs.17,96,146/- (44,90,364 - 40% of 44,90,364)
20. In view of the above discussions, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the total compensation of Rs.26,94,218/-. The learned Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs.26,27,300/-. Therefore, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the additional compensation of Rs.66,918/- i.e. (Rs.26,94,218/- -(less) Rs.26,27,300/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, therefore, the claimants/appellants shall also be entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% on the additional amount of compensation.
21. In view of the above discussions, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. However, the Appeal preferred by the original claimants/appellants stands allowed partly. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent.
22. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, within a period of 6 weeks from today.
23. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the original claimants, after deducting the deficit court fees, if any, and after due verification.
Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2260/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined
24. Statutory amount, if any, lying/deposited with the Registry of this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.
25. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) CDP Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 02:14:24 IST 2026