Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Legal Heirs Of Deceased Ramanbhai ... on 16 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2053 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2054 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED RAMANBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL,
MADHUBEN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAL S SHAH(3988) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 8,9
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 7
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Both the captioned appeals are filed against the common impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petitions. Page 1 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007 have been filed on behalf of the original claimants for seeking the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- each, on the averments as pleaded in the claim petitions that on 12.01.2007, the deceased persons were going to Mumbai by travelling in ST bus bearing registration No.GJ-18-V- 8903 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life. When the said bus reached near a canal situated in the vicinity of Village- Mahuvej at about 11:15 p.m., in the meantime the said ST bus rammed into a stationary truck bearing registration No.GJ-7-X- 6523 from behind resulting into the serious accident. It is the say of the claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 that the accident has occurred owing to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the ST bus bearing registration No.GJ-18-V-8903 whereas the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007 averred in the claim petition that the accident was caused owing to the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-7-X-6523, as he parked his truck in dark without any indicator or signal. In the said accident, many persons sustained bodily injuries Page 2 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined including fractures, whereas the Ramanbhai Nathabhai Patel and Chandubhai Naruji Makwana succumbed to the injuries. The FIR being I-C.R. No.6/2007 for the said offence came to be registered at Kosamba Police Station. The claimants of the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 had pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased Ramanbhai Nathabhai Patel was aged about 49 years at the time of accident and he was gainfully employed and working with GSRTC as a conductor and thereby earning a sum of Rs.8,200/- as a monthly salary. Therefore, they filed claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. While the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007 pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of accident the deceased Chandubhai Naruji Makwana was aged about 33 years and he was engaged with Gujarat Road Transport Corporation as a driver posted at Khedbrahma Depot and thereby earning a sum of Rs.7,062/- as a monthly salary. He was also engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry and thereby earning an additional sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, hence at the time of accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- from both sources of income. So, they claimed a Page 3 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined sum of Rs.20,00,000/ as a compensation on account of the death of Chandubhai Naruji Makwana.
4. On being served, the opponent No.1,3 and 4 did not appear in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 while the opponent No.1,2 and 4 did not appear in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007, therefore the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against him. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation appeared through its advocate and filed the written statement at Exh-20 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 and at Exh-18 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007. In brief, the ST Corporation in its written statements stated that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending truck. The averments made in the claim petitions were also denied in-toto and in brief they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. While the Insurance Company of the offending truck filed the written statement in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 at Exh-21 and in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007 at Exh-20 contending therein that the driver of the bus was solely negligent for causing the accident, therefore, the Page 4 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company also denied the averments made in the claim petition in-toto and prayed for rejection of the claim petition. The perusal of the record transpires that arising out of the said accident five claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal i.e. Motor Accident Claim Petition No.30 of 2008, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.31 of 2008, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.432 of 2007 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007. The perusal of the record further transpires that the parties- herein filed the application at Exh-45 thereby praying for consolidating all the claim petitions, hence the learned Tribunal consolidated the claim petitions.
6. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 at Exh-27 and in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007 at Exh-23 for determination of the claim petition.
"1. Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died on account of rashness or negligence in driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?
2. What amount, if any, the claimants are entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?Page 5 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined
3. What order and award?"
7. In order to prove their respective claims, the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 have led the following oral as well as the documentary evidence.
Sr Particulars Exhibit
No.
1. Affidavit in examination-in-chief 44
and cross-examination of the
claimant
2. Certified copy of FIR 33
3. Certified copy of P.M. Note of 34
deceased
4. Certified copy of Panchnama of 35
place of accident
5. Inquest Panchnama of the deceased 36
6. Certified copy of charge-sheet 37
8. The claimants of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007 have led the the following oral as well as the documentary evidence on record.
Sr Particulars Exhibit
No.
1. Affidavit in examination-in-chief 42
and cross-examination of the
claimant
2. Certified copy of FIR 31
3. Certified copy of P.M. Note of 39
Page 6 of 38
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
deceased
4. Certified copy of Panchnama of 32
place of accident
5. Inquest Panchnama of the deceased 38
6. Certified copy of charge-sheet filed 36
against the driver of ST Bus
7. Tickets of ST Bus of petitioner 33
8. Insurance Policy of the offending 50
truck
9. The ST Corporation has examined his driver Parghi Motibhai Kanabhai at Exh-75.
10. Having considered the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence and submissions made by the learned advocate for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.8,42,296/- along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007, while a sum of Rs.10,28,020/- was awarded as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007.
11. The learned Tribunal had also apportioned the negligence Page 7 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined between the driver of the ST Corporation and the driver of the truck in the ratio of 20:80.
12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellants- Insurance Company of the truck challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of negligence.
13. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
14. Mr. Anal Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that the FIR of the accident came to be registered against the driver of the ST Corporation. He further submitted that the oral evidence of the eye-witness on record also corroborated the contents of the FIR. He further submitted that even the Panchnama of place of accident also transpires that the accident occurred solely on account of negligence of the driver of the bus. However, the learned Tribunal held that the driver of the truck negligent for causing the accident to the extent of 80%. He further submitted that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal is manifestly perverse and against the evidence on record. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal is liable to be reversed. Page 8 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined
15. On the other hand, Ms. Hina Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the ST Corporation, vehemently submitted that the driver of the truck parked the truck in the middle of the road without any indicator or caution. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of S. T. Bus is negligent to the extent of 20%. She further submitted that the truck driver had not stepped into witness box to explain as to how the accident had occurred, while the driver of the ST Corporation has stepped into the witness box and he proved that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the truck. She further submitted that there is no infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of negligence.
16. On the other hand, Mr. R. K. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, submitted that the Chandubhai Naruji Makwana and Ramanbhai Nathabhai Patel sustained the fatal injuries owing to the composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded the just compensation. He further submitted that though the Page 9 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined claimants in both the claim petitions had proved the income of the deceased on record by way of leading oral as well as documentary evidence, however, the learned Tribunal had not considered the cogent evidence of income on record. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had made unwarranted deduction from the salary and thereby determined the income at a lower side. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded a meager amount of compensation under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. He further submitted that though the deceased were survived by their respective widow, children and parents, however, the learned Tribunal had not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation and modification of the impugned judgment and award.
17. Mr. Anal Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that the original claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement, therefore, in the appeal preferred before the Insurance Company, the original claimant in absence of any cross-objections or independent appeal, cannot be permitted to seek the Page 10 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined enhancement of compensation. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company of the truck placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Banarasi and Ors Versus Ram Phal, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 606, Nirmala Bala Ghose Versus Balai Chand Ghose, reported in 1965 (0) AIJEL-SC 19799, Shivawwa and Anr Versus Branch Manager, National India Insurance Company Limited and Anr, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 762 and Ranjana Prakash and Ors Versus Divisional Manager and Anr, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639. Learned advocate has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Bombay High Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Rajani Suresh Bhore, reported in 2017 AAC 2251 and judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance- Ltd Verus- Nanki and Ors [in Misc. Appeal No.125 of 2015]. Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the submissions of the original claimants for enhancement of compensation is not sustainable.
18. Per contra, Mr. R. K. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, vehemently submitted that in Page 11 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined absence of independent appeal or cross-objections of the original claimants for enhancement of compensation. The original claimants can seek the enhancement in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the original claimant placed reliance upon the judgment of other Co-ordiante Bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd Versus Batuksinh Fatehsinh Jadeja since decd. Through heirs & Ors., reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 249677, New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Alibhai Hashambhai Sumara, reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-HC 251715, National Insurance Company Limited Versus Mahendrakumar Jayantilal Patel, reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-HC 250413, judgment of Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1455 of 2017 and allied matters (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Versus Sureshbhai Chhotabhai Thakkar & Ors). Learned advocate for the original claimants has also placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur rendered in the case of Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Roopchand Sahu and Ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 10949, judgment of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh rendered in the case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Page 12 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined Co. Ltd. Versus Noor Begum and Ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 908 and judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Limited and Anr Versus T. Roja Rani and Ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1755.
19. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned advocate for the original claimants, vehemently submitted that the claimants are entitled for just compensation. There is no legal impediment in praying for enhancement of compensation in the appeal preferred by the owner, driver or the Insurer.
20. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the records, it is to be noted that it is not in dispute that in accident in question, the offending truck and bus involved in the said accident, the original claimants sustained the grievous as well as fatal injuries and arising out of the same accident, as many as five claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal which were decided by the learned Tribunal by a common impugned judgment and award. The appellant- Insurance Company of the truck had challenged the impugned judgment and award on the Page 13 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined issue of negligence. So far as the negligence is concerned, it is evident from the record that the FIR came to be registered against the driver of the ST bus. It is also undisputed fact that after investigation, the prosecution agency had filed the charge- sheet against the driver of the bus. It is also undisputed fact that the claimants of claim petition i.e. Motor Accident Claim Petition No.30 of 2008, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.31 of 2008, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.432 of 2007 pleaded in their respective claim petition that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the ST bus, while the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007 have pleaded that the accident occurred owing to the negligence of the driver of the truck. It is also to be noted that the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007 was filed for seeking the compensation on account of death of the second driver of the ST bus while the other Motor Accident Claim Petitions were filed by the passengers travelling in the bus. It is also on record that the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.103 of 2007 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No.229 of 2007 have been filed on account of the death of the conductor and second driver of the ST bus. Therefore, the claimants of these claim petitions were not the eye-witness to the incident. Page 14 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined However, the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.30 of 2008, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.31 of 2008 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No.432 of 2007 was filed by the injured person who sustained the disability on account of injuries sustained in the accident and they were passengers in the ST bus at the time of accident. Therefore, they were the eye-witness of the accident. They all have pleaded that the accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the ST bus.
21. The claimants have proved the FIR of the accident at Exh- 31 & 33 respectively on record. The perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the FIR came to be registered by one Mukeshbhai Dhanjibhai Rathod who was a labourer on the offending truck in-question. As per the FIR, at the time of accident, the truck was parked at the edge of the road because the rear tyre of the truck was punctured. The driver, conductor and other labourer have lightened the bone-fire near the truck owing to the cold as it was winter season. It is also stated that at the place of accident, the road was 28 ft. wide. The claimants have also proved the Panchanama of place of accident at Exh-32 & 35 respectively. Perusal of the Panchnama, it transpires that at the place of accident, the road was 28 ft. wide and due to the impact Page 15 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined of the accident, the truck was dragged to some extent. The Panchnama further transpires that there were tyre marks on the road which shows that the driver of the bus applied the brakes. The bus was found 100 ft. away from the place of accident. The Panchnama also transpires that at the time of accident the truck was stationary and no precautions, such as to keep the indicators on or putting any obstructions to avoid the accident were taken by the driver of the truck. It is also note-worthy that the driver of the bus not filed the written statement, but he stepped into the witness-box. In his examination-in-chief at Exh- 75, he shifted the entire blame on the driver of the truck. He also deposed in the affidavit that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the truck driver. However, in the cross- examination he admitted that the FIR came to be lodged against him and the prosecution agency has also filed the charge-sheet against him. He also admitted that in the head light of the bus he could have seen the thing from the distance of 100 meter. He also admitted that the truck was stationed on the correct side of the road. He also admitted that the road on which the accident took place is very busy road. He also admitted that at the place of accident, the road was about 30 ft wide. He also admitted that he has seen the truck. He also admitted that at the place of Page 16 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined accident, there was no Kachcha road. He also admitted that after the accident, the truck went into a ditched. He also admitted that the FIR was lodged against him and he had not made any complaint that he has been falsely implicated in the said accident. During the course of arguments, learned advocate for the appellant has also relied upon the deposition of the claimant of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.432 of 2007 recorded at Exh-40. In his examination-in-chief at Exh-40 he deposed that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the bus as he was driving the bus at excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner and he hit the truck from behind. In his cross-examination he also admitted that the truck was parked at the edge of the road. He also admitted that the accident occurred owing to the negligence of the bus driver.
22. The minute scrutiny of all these evidences on record transpires that at the time of accident, the bus was at an excessive speed. At the place of accident, the road was 28 to 30 ft wide, therefore, the bus could have easily pass through the road at the place of accident. The tyre marks on the road also suggest that thee bus was at excessive speed. As revealed from the Panchnama that 3-4 seats and one side of the bus was Page 17 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined totally damaged and after the accident the bus was found 100 ft away form the place of accident. This fact itself suggests that the bus was being driven at the time of accident at very excessive speed in negligent manner. But at the same time, it is also to be noted that the driver of the truck was also negligent as he has not taken any precaution to keep the indicator on or to put any obstructions so as to avoid the accident. In these facts and circumstances, both the drivers have contributed for causing the accident. The driver of the truck is more negligent as he parked the truck without any precautions sign indicators on a high-way road and at the same time the driver of the bus was driving the bus negligently at very excessive speed and he could not control the bus. Therefore, in my considered view, the driver of the truck is negligent to the extent of 60% while the driver of the bus is also negligent to the extent of 40%. Therefore, the finding returned on this issue is modified accordingly.
23. So far as the contention of the learned advocate as to whether in an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the claimants can pray for enhancement of compensation is concerned, in Banarasi and Ors(supra), the Apex Court in para- 22 observed as under:-
Page 18 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined "22. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the first appellate court ought not to have, while dismissing the appeals filed by the defendant-appellants before it, modified the decree in favour of the respondent before it in the absence of cross-appeal or cross-objection.
The interference by the first appellate court has reduced the appellants to a situation worse than in what they would have been if they had not appealed. The High Court ought to have noticed this position of law and should have interfered to correct the error of law committed by the first appellate court."
24. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmala Bala Ghose(supra) in para-22 observed as under:-
"22. In this appeal the two deities are also impleaded as party-respondents, but the deities have not taken part in the proceeding before this Court, as they did not in the High Court. The decree against the two-deities has become final, no appeal having been preferred to the High Court by the deities. It is not open to Nirmala to challenge the decree insofar as it is against the deities, because she does not represent the deities. The rights conferred by the deed Ext. 11 upon Nirmala are not affected by the decree of the Trial Court. She is not seeking in this appeal to claim a more exalted right under the deed for herself, which may require re-examination even incidentally of the correctness of the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court insofar as it relates to the title of the deities. It was urged, however, that apart from the claim which Nirmala has made for herself the Court has power and is indeed bound under O 41. R. 33. Code of Civil Procedure to pass a decree, if on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the deed, this Court comes to the conclusion that the deed operates as an absolute dedication in favour of the two deities. Under 41 B. 33, insofar as it is material, provides:
"The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case Page 19 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filled any appeal or objection:".
The rule is undoubtedly expressed in terms which are wide, but it has to be applied with discretion, and to cases where interference in favour of the appellant necessitates interference also with a decree which has by acceptance or acquiescence become final so as to enable the Court to adjust the rights of the parties. Where in an appeal the Court reaches a conclusion which is inconsistent with the opinion of the Court appealed from and in adjusting the right claimed by the appellant it is necessary to grant relief to a person who has not appealed, the power conferred by 0. 41 R. 33 may properly be invoked. The rule however does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the Court appealed from:"
25. Apex Court in the case of Shivawwa and Anr(supra) in para-15 observed as under:-
"15. Reverting to the argument of the appellants that the Tribunal committed manifest error in computing the compensation amount, we find that the appellant-claimants did not file an appeal enhancement of compensation amount against that part of the award passed by the Tribunal nor chose to file any cross-objection in the first appeal filed by the insurer before the High Court. Moreover, from the judgment of the High Court there is no indication that any attempt was made on behalf of the appellants to ask for enhanced compensation amount on the grounds as would have been available to the appellants in that behalf. Significantly, in the present appeal also, the appellants have not asked for any "relief" against that part of the award passed by the Tribunal, regarding the quantum of compensation. The relief claimed in this appeal is only to set aside the decision of Page 20 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined the High Court passed in the first appeal preferred by the insurer. In this backdrop, it will not be appropriate for this Court to consider the argument regarding the quantum of compensation at the instance of the appellant- claimants."
26. The similar question arose before the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Ors(supra) wherein the Apex Court in para-8 observed as under:-
"8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation."
27. Single Bench of Bombay High Court in Rajani Suresh Bhore(supra) observed in para-42 as under:-
"42. The following principles therefore emerge:
(a) The compensation awarded must be just compensation, neither excessive nor illusory, viz., compensation that is moderate, reasonable and appropriate.
(b) Where it is not, a court in appeal can set it right, irrespective of whether or not a Page 21 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined substantive appeal has been filed.
(c) An appeal court can always step in to correct a computational error of one that is facially incorrect, such as the adoption of an incorrect multiplier. No separate or independent appeal or cross-objections are needed for this. The present case is an example.
(d) Where there is need for an adjustment of distribution of the award under various heads with no impact on the overall award, this can always be done by an appeal court without need for a separate appeal (as in the present case).
(e) Where an appeal is filed seeking reduction, an original claimant can, without filing an independent appeal, submit that the original award should be retained without interference.
(f) Where an appeal is filed seeking reduction, a claim for enhancement (i.e., not on maintenance of the original award, nor for correction of an obvious error), or vice versa, cannot be entertained without a substantive appeal or cross-objections as contemplated by Order 41, Rule 22."
28. Similarly, the Single Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Nanki and Ors(supra) in para-25 observed as under:-
"25. Thus, from law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash (supra) and also having regard to relevant statutory provisions of law regarding appeal/cross-objections/Court fees etc., following propositions of law can be culled out/law can be summed up as under:-
(i). Right to appeal, including filing of cross objections, is a statutory right and this right is to be exercised as per relevant/applicable provisions of law and within limitation as prescribed under the law of limitation and after payment of requisite Court fees as per the Court Fees Act, 1870;
(ii). In law, a claimant has been provided with statutory remedy to file appeal/ cross objections, if claimant is aggrieved by an award on any ground whatsoever, including Page 22 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined inadequate compensation;
(iii). A claimant is not legally entitled to bypass and overlook relevant provisions of law and insist for enhancement of compensation in an appeal filed by insurance company or owner/driver, without filing any cross objections in the case or separate appeal;
(iv). A claimant has no vested right/statutory right to challenge the award without filing any appeal or cross objections. In this Court's opinion, if claimant wishes to challenge award on any ground whatsoever, including that compensation is inadequate and should be enhanced, then, he must exercise his statutory right to file an appeal/cross objections as provided under the law;
(v). Further, whenever an appeal is filed by insurer/owner/driver for reduction of compensation amount and claimants have not filed any appeal/cross Μ.Α.Νο.125/2015 & Μ.Α.Νο. 157/2015 objections for enhancement of compensation, then, enhancing compensation in such case, would make feel insurer/owner/driver that he committed mistake in filing appeal for reduction of compensation.
Again enhancing compensation in above factual scenario would amount to penalizing insurer/owner/driver for filing appeal for reduction of compensation, who has come before this Court in accordance with provisions of law;
(vi). Thus, it is neither legally/statutorily nor logically appropriate to enhance compensation in an appeal filed by insurer/owner/driver for reduction of compensation, when no appeal/cross objections have been filed by claimant for enhancement of compensation;
(vii). Thus, in absence of cross objections/appeal, claimants cannot seek enhancement of compensation;
(viii). But whenever, an appeal is filed by insurer/owner/driver for reduction of compensation and High Court proposes to reduce the compensation, in such cases, claimants can defend quantum of compensation by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show that there is no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation;"
29. The same question arose before the Co-ordinate Bench of Page 23 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined the single Judge in the case of Batuksinh fatehsinh Jadeja since decd. Through heirs & Ors.(supra) wherein the para-21 of the judgment, the Court observed as under:-
"21. Another issue arises as to whether in absence of any cross- objection or cross appeal on behalf of the claimant, whether in the appeal filed by the insurance company the appellate Court can enhance the compensation granted by the tribunal. O.41 R.31 of CPC r/w O.41 R.22 read with decision in case of Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate Versus Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav [2021 (16) SCC 467] would rescue the situation. Needless to say that principle of just and fair compensation applies at every stage of proceedings. The duty is casted upon the MACT to assess, calculate and grant just and fair compensation at every stage regardless of filing of appeal. Therefore, it is clear that even in absence of cross-objection or cross appeal the appellate Court holds jurisdiction to enhance the compensation."
30. The question further arose before the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Alibhai Hashambhai Sumara(supra) wherein para- 15, the Court has observed as under:-
"[15.] Having held so, the loss of dependency is reconsidered, in absence of any further challenge being made to the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and the multiplier of 17 is adopted. The deceased was a married person and having four dependents, which includes the aged parents, the widow and the minor son. In such circumstances, considering the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), each of the claimants shall be entitled to the amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the same. Though, no appeal or any cross- objection has been preferred by the respondents-original claimants, considering the provisions of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code, Page 24 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined 1908, this Court being conferred with the jurisdiction to pass any order, which otherwise the Tribunal ought to have passed, this Court is inclined to reconsider the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium. Thus, the present respondent nos.1 to 4-original claimants are held entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium, and accordingly, the loss of consortium is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 1,60,000/-. In absence of any dispute being raised with regard to amount of compensation being awarded under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses are concerned, the same are hereby confirmed.
31. The similar question arose before the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1455 of 2017 and allied matters wherein para-18, the Court has observed as under:-
"18. This brings us to the aspect of quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal in the respective claim petitions. Indisputedly, the original claimants have not approached this Court by filing any separate appeal or any cross- objections seeking enhancement of the awarded amount. Section 166 of the M.V. Act, puts an obligation on the Courts to award just compensation. To serve the object of the M.V. Act, which is considered as a beneficial legislation, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the record of the cases on hand, in our opinion, the power conferred upon the Appellate court in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code can always be invoked to do complete justice even in absence of any appeal or cross-objections filed by the original claimants as held by this Court in case of Amarsing Pratapsing Sikliker & Ors., (supra). We are convinced that this is a fit case to consider the prayer of the respondents - original claimants for enhancement under three conventional heads."
32. In the case of Mahendrakumar Jayantilal Patel(supra), Page 25 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined the learned Single Judge in para-15, the Court observed as under:-
"15. Thus, in view of the above settled law, I am of the view that there is no bar at granting more compensation than what is claimed by claimant in the claim petition.
33. The very same question came for consideration before the learned Single Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of Noor Begum and Ors(supra) wherein para-31 and 32, the Court has observed as under:-
"31. Again the Supreme Court in the case of "Pralhad v. State of Maharashtra", (2010) 10 SCC 458 has, while interpreting the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure held as under:
"18. The provision of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the appellate court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the crucial words are that the appellate court is empowered to pass any order which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression "order ought to have been made" would obviously mean an order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the expression used in the said Rule by saying "the court may pass such further or other order as the case may require". This expression "case"
would mean the justice of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict or a prohibition clamped by law.
32. In view of what has been discussed above, it is clear that this Court has to be guided by the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure while deciding as to whether the claimants have been awarded just compensation and the said provisions can be Page 26 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined invoked by this Court for exercising the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants by the learned Tribunal if it is found that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side even if no cross- appeal/cross-objection is filed by the claimant. In this regard, I am supported by the ratio laid down by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayodhya Devi" (MA No. 165/2009 decided on 18.09.2020)."
34. The similar question came for consideration before the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of T. Roja Rani and Ors(supra) wherein para-66 of the judgment the Court has observed as under:-
"66. Paragraphs 15 to 20 of Susubelli Bapuji (supra) are as under:
"15. In Surekha v. Santosh, ((2021) 16 SCC
467), where the High Court of Bombay though agreed with the stand of the appellants therein that just compensation amount ought to be Rs.49,85,376/-, declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had failed to file crossappeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para-2 is as under:
2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hypertechnical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.
16. In Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali, ((2021) 17 SCC 148), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claimants are entitled to just compensation.
Merely because in the execution proceedings they accepted the amount as awarded may be as full and final settlement, that shall not take away the right of the claimants to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming the enhanced amount of compensation. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and claimants are entitled to just compensation.
17. Para No. 17 of Meena Pawaia (5 th supra) Page 27 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined read as under:
17. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the Union of India that as in the execution proceedings the claimants accepted the amount due and payable under the impugned judgment and order and accepted the same as full and final settlement, thereafter the claimants ought not to have preferred appeal for enhancement of the compensation is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. The claimants are entitled to just compensation. Merely because in the execution proceedings they might have accepted the amount as awarded by the High Court, may be as full and final settlement, it shall not take away the right of the claimants to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming the enhanced amount of compensation which they as such are held to be entitled to. As such, the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent Act and as observed hereinabove the claimants are entitled to just compensation. As such, the Union of India ought not to have taken such a plea/defence.
18. In Smt. Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held as under:
10. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicants).
11. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, this Court has laid down as under: "16. ..."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a Page 28 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
19. From the aforesaid judgments it is settled in law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation.
Endeavour should be made by the court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of:
a) that they have not preferred any appeal for enhancement nor filed any cross objection in the appeal filed by the owner/Insurance company.
b) that even after they accepted the amount in execution proceedings they can claim the just compensation in the proper proceedings, and
c) that the amount of compensation claimed in their petition, is less than the amount of the compensation determined by the Tribunal/Court.
20. Consequently, we are of the view that the claimants/respondents though they have not preferred any appeal for enhancement nor filed any cross objection, they are entitled for just & fair compensation. This Court therefore in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction proceed to determine the just compensation, to which they might be entitled, keeping in view the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the Insurance Company as also the claimants."
35. Now the controversy is no more res-integra, the same has been settled by the Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and Ors Vs Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and Ors, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 467, wherein the Apex Court observed in para-1 and 2 as under:-
"1. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 4-1-2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No. 2564 of 2016, whereby the High Court, even though agreed with the stand of the appellants Page 29 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined that just compensation amount ought to be Rs 49,85,376 (Rupees forty-nine lakhs eighty-five thousand three hundred seventy-six only), however, declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had failed to file cross-appeal.
2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hypertechnical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants."
36. Now, in the light of judgment of Full Bench of Apex Court, there is no iota of doubt that without filing of an appeal or cross- objections, the claimants can pray for enhancement of compensation.
37. As of now the legal position is settled that claimants are entitled for just compensation and in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the original claimants can pray for the enhancement of compensation, therefore, now this Court will consider as to whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just or not?
IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2053 OF 2011 (IN MACP NO.103 of 2007)
38. It is undisputed fact that at the time of accident, the Page 30 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined deceased was gainfully engaged as a conductor with Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and his salary slip for the month of December 2006 was proved at Exh-44 showing the gross salary of Rs.8,133/-. The learned Tribunal had considered the basic salary and D.A. for assessing the income of the deceased. In the judgment of Sarla Varma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 (06) SCC 121, the Apex Court has held that the net salary means gross salary minus income-tax. Therefore, what could have been deducted from the salary, is the amount deducted from the salary on account of income-tax. On perusal of the salary slip, it transpires that an amount of Rs.40/- was deducted on account of professional tax, therefore, from the gross salary, an amount of Rs.40/- is to be deducted on account of professional tax. Therefore, after deducting the professional tax from the gross salary of the deceased, the monthly salary would come to Rs.8,093/-. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 49 years, therefore, the monthly income is further to be enhanced by 30% on account of future prospects of the deceased. After, adding 30% to the monthly income, the monthly income would come to Rs.10,520.9/- i.e. (8,093 + 30% of 8,093) which is rounded to Rs.10,521/-. It is on record that the Page 31 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined deceased was survived by his widow, father and three children. Therefore, 1/4 of the monthly income is to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal had deducted 1/3 of the monthly income on account of personal expenses which is not in consonance with the ratio of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Sarla Varma & Ors(supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, after deducting 1/4 of the monthly income on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly income for calculating the loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,891/- i.e. (10,521- 25% of 10,521). Thus, applying the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the deceased, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.12,30,996/- i.e. (7,891 x 12 x 13).
39. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and transportation. The compensation awarded under these heads are not in consonance with the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi(supra) and hence, accordingly the compensation awarded under the head of loss of Page 32 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined estate is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.18,150/- and the compensation awarded under the head of funeral expenses is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.18,150/-.
40. Though, at the time of accident the deceased was survived by his widow, father and three children, but, the learned Tribunal had not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of consortium. All the legal representatives are entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium, therefore, a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- i.e. (48,400 x 5) is awarded under the head of loss of consortium.
41. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the original claimants shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future Loss of Dependency 12,30,996/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium 2,42,000/-
Total 15,09,296/-
Less: compensation already awarded 8,42,296/-
Enhancement 6,67,000/-
Page 33 of 38
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
42. In view of the above discussions, the original claimants shall be entitled for the total compensation of Rs.15,09,296/-. The learned Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs.8,42,296/-. Therefore, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the additional compensation of Rs.6,67,000/- i. e. (Rs.15,09,296/- -(less) Rs.8,42,296/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, therefore, the claimants/appellants shall also be entitled for the interest at the rate of 7.5% on the additional amount of compensation. IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2054 OF 2011 (IN MACP NO.229 of 2007)
43. It is undisputed fact that at the time of accident, the deceased was gainfully engaged as a driver with Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and his salary slip for the month of December 2006 was proved at Exh-72 showing the gross salary of Rs.7,062/-. The learned Tribunal had considered the basic salary and D.A. for assessing the income of the deceased. In the judgment of Sarla Varma & Ors(supra) has held that the net salary means gross salary minus income-tax. Therefore, amount which could have been deducted from the salary is the amount Page 34 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined deducted on account of income-tax. Perusal of the salary slip transpires that an amount of Rs.25/- was deducted on account of professional tax, therefore, from the gross salary, an amount of Rs.25/- is to be deducted on account of professional tax. Therefore, after deducting the professional tax from the gross salary of the deceased, the monthly salary would come to Rs.7,037/-. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 33 years, therefore, the monthly income is further to be enhanced by 50% on account of future prospects of the deceased. After, adding 50% to the monthly income, the monthly income would come to Rs.10,555.5/- i.e. (7,037 + 50% of 7,037) which is rounded to Rs.10,556/-. It is on record that the deceased was survived by his widow, father, mother and two children. Therefore, 1/4 of the monthly income is to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal had deducted 1/3 of the monthly income on account of personal expenses which is not in consonance with the ratio of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Sarla Varma & Ors(supra) and Pranay Shethi(supra). Therefore, after deducting 1/4 of the monthly income on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly income for calculating the loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,917/- i.e. Page 35 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined (10,556- 25% of 10,556). Thus, applying the multiplier of 16 as per the age of the deceased, the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,20,064/- i.e. ( 7,917 x 12 x 16).
44. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and transportation. The compensation awarded under these heads are not in consonance with the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi(supra) and hence, accordingly the compensation awarded under the head of loss of estate is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.18,150/- and the compensation awarded under the head of funeral expenses is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.18,150/-.
45. Though, at the time of accident the deceased was survived by his widow, father, mother and two children, however, the learned Tribunal had not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of consortium. However, all the legal representatives are entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium, therefore, a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- i.e. (48,400 x 5) is awarded under the head of loss of consortium. Page 36 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined
46. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the original claimants shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future Loss of Dependency 15,20,064/-
Funeral Expenses 18,150/-
Loss of Estate 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium 2,42,000/-
Total 17,98,364/-
Less: compensation already awarded 10,28,020/-
Enhancement 7,70,344/-
47. In view of the above discussions, the original claimants shall be entitled for the total compensation of Rs.17,98,364/-. The learned Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs.10,28,020/-. Therefore, the claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the additional compensation of Rs.7,70,344/- i. e. (Rs.17,98,364/- -(less) Rs.10,28,020/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, therefore, the claimants/appellants shall also be entitled for the interest at the rate of 7.5% on the additional amount of compensation.
48. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeals Page 37 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2053/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined stand allowed partly and the impugned judgment and award is to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
49. The Insurance Company and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation are directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation along with the interest within a period of six weeks from today.
50. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the original claimants, after deducting the court fees, if any, and after due verification.
51. Amount, if any, deposited with the Registry of this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.
52. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) CDP Page 38 of 38 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:35:09 IST 2026