Gujarat High Court
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Shambhubhai Talar on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3364/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3364 of 2023
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 58 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3364 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
KOKILABEN SHAMBHUBHAI TALAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance in First Appeal:
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 8
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5,7
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
Appearance in Cross Objection:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 24/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] By way of present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant - insurance company has assailed the impugned judgment and award dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara (for short "learned Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.138/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:49:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3364/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined the original claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.15,37,580/- (after deducting 50% from total compensation of Rs.30,75,160/- towards self negligence of the deceased) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. Cross Objection No.58/2024 in First Appeal No.3364 of 2023 is filed by the original claimants challenging the impugned judgment insofar as it held the deceased driver of truck to be 50% contributory negligent for the accident.
[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal and cross- objections are as follows:
[2.1] On 05.11.2014, deceased Sahmbhubhai Fatabhai Talar (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") was coming from Ahmedabad to Vadodara on Ahmedabad - Vadodara Express Highway by driving his Truck No.GJ-06-AP-9673 and when he reached at the place of accident, opponent No.1 - driver of Luxury Bus No.GJ-3-AX-313 took his Luxury Bus suddenly in front of the Truck of the deceased due to which the accident occurred wherein the deceased sustained grievous injuries and during his treatment, the deceased died on 08.01.2015. With regard to the accident, complaint being I-CR No.156/2014 came to be registered with Chhani Police Station, Vadodara. Therefore, the original claimants - legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.45 lakh.
[2.2] After considering the evidence produced on record by the respective parties, learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold the driver of both the vehicles equally negligent for the accident and learned Tribunal awarded Rs.15,37,580/- after deducting 50% from total compensation of Rs.30,75,160/- towards negligence of the deceased driver of Truck and exonerated the owner and insurance Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:49:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3364/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined company of offending Truck and the learned Tribunal ordered the original opponent Nos.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.15,37,580/- to the original claimants. Hence, present First Appeal is filed by the appellant - insurance company of Luxury Bus challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground that learned Tribunal ought not to have held driver of Luxury Bus to the extent of 50% as there was 100% negligence of the deceased driver of Truck whereas cross-objections are filed by the original claimants challenging 50% negligence on the part of deceased Truck driver.
[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia appearing for the appellant
- insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding the driver of Luxury Bus negligent to the extent of 50% without any valid reason and basis. He has argued that the deceased driver of truck was solely negligent for the accident. The FIR is filed against the deceased driver of truck and therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have considered the deceased truck driver to be solely negligent for the accident. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the respondent No.8 - insurance company of truck without any valid and proper reason. He has alternatively submitted that policy of truck was a package policy and risk of paid driver was covered in the said policy and therefore, Tribunal ought to have considered liability on the part of respondent No.8 rather than exonerating it from the liability to pay the compensation. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting ¼ deduction towards dependency and personal expenses and in considering the monthly income of deceased at Rs.20,500/-. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:49:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3364/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined
[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the original claimants has opposed the First Appeal and in support of the Cross Objections, he has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error as respondent No.1 - driver of luxury bus did not step into the witness and hence, adverse inference is properly drawn on the part of luxury bus driver however, the learned Tribunal committed an error in not holding the driver of luxury bus to be solely negligent for the accident. He has further argued that the deceased driver was paid driver and therefore, the learned Tribunal committed an error in deducting 50% of compensation for the negligence of the deceased driver. In this regard, he has relied on the decision of Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakor vs. Kandla Dock Labour Board reported in 2022 (1) GLR 440 and on the case of Radhaben Janamlal Kacha vs. Dineshbhai Mansukhbhai Raval and submitted that though both these judgments were cited before the learned Tribunal, same have not been followed and ignoring the principle laid down in the said decisions, learned Tribunal has considered 50% negligence on the part of deceased truck driver. Hence, he has requested to allow the cross objections and dismiss the first appeal.
[5.0] Since present appeal and cross objection raise challenge to liability and improper consideration of income of deceased, present first appeal and cross objections are considered in narrow compass.
[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company and learned advocate appearing for the original claimants and perusing the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence produced and adduced by both the parties including the evidence of the claimant No.2 (Exh.26) and complaint Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:49:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3364/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined (Exh.55) and panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.56) as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, wherein it is held that it is settled law that negligence is required to be proved in claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability and not beyond doubt. Perusing the complaint (Exh.55) and panchnama (Exh.56), it transpires that front portion of the truck and rear portion of the luxury bus are damaged and thus, it is clear that the truck dashed behind the luxury bus and involvement of both the vehicles in accident is apparent. The complaint (Exh.55) is filed by the driver of luxury bus and he has also been examined at Exh.81 wherein he has stated that when he was going from Ahmedabad to Vadodara on Express Highway and reached near village Sankarda, tyre of his luxury bus got punctured and after changing the tyre, when he proceeded towards Vadodara, at that time, the truck dashed on the back side of the luxury bus and accident occurred. In this regard, complaint was registered against the deceased truck driver. The driver of luxury bus has admitted in his cross-examination that express highway is having two tracks and he stationed his luxury bus on the small track which does not include two tracks and he also admitted that when he was taking his luxury bus from small track to the main track, at that time, truck coming from behind the luxury bus on the main track dashed on the rear portion of the luxury bus. Hence, it clearly reveals from the record that when the accident took place, both the vehicles were moving in same direction and while luxury bus was changing the track and coming on the main track. In the considered opinion of this Court, driver of both the vehicles ought to have taken sufficient care. If the driver of luxury bus while taking his vehicle from small track to main track would have Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:49:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3364/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined been vigilant and would have given way to the truck to overtake the luxury bus, then the accident could have been avoided. Similarly, the truck driver ought to have seen the luxury bus coming from small track to main track and ought to have applied brakes of the truck which he did not and therefore, the accident occurred. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered driver of both the vehicles to be equally negligent for the accident and no interference is called for so far as negligence aspect is concerned.
[6.1] So far as quantum is concerned, the original claimants have examined one Mohansingh Negi (Exh.42) who is working as Manager in Dashmesh Transport Company and he has stated that the deceased was working as a driver in the said transport company. On being shown the statement of salary given to the deceased for the period from 10.12.2011 to 13.11.2014, the said witness has identified the seal and signature of the transport company and admitted that the said statement is prepared after verifying the salary receipts which show the income of the deceased at Rs.20,500/- including dearness allowance of Rs.100 per day. The said witness is not examined by the insurance company and therefore, the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of deceased at Rs.20,500/- by observing that the evidence is admitted on the scale of preponderence of probability. Hence, to that extent the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in the considered opinion of this Court in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav reported in (2022)1 SCC 198.
[6.2] Further, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 13 in view of decision of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:49:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3364/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined considering the birth date of deceased as 10.06.1967 as per the driving license produced at Exh.67 and the accident occurred on 05.11.2014 and therefore, the deceased on the date of accident was aged 47 years. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied the future prospects of 25% in view of the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 and since the deceased left behind him, his wife and 3 children, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied ¼ deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and dependency in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.29,98,160/-
towards future loss of dependency. Even, under other heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which in the considered opinion of this Court does not call for any interference. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation as under:
Heads Awarded by Tribunal
Future loss of Rs.29,98,160/-
dependency
Conventional Heads Rs.77,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.30,75,160/-
However, the learned Tribunal sliced down the aforesaid compensation by 50% towards contributory negligence of the deceased and thus, awarded only Rs.15,37,580/- to the claimants.
[7.0] As the original opponent No.4 was registered owner of Truck No.GJ-06-AP-9673 and truck was insured with original opponent No.5 and the policy was in force for the period from 14.02.2014 to 13.02.2015 which covers the date of accident i.e. 05.11.2014 and Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:49:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3364/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined therefore, the insurance policy (Exh.71) was in force. It is undisputed and admitted position that in the said policy, additional premium of Rs.150/- under IMT 28 for paid driver is accepted by the insurance company and therefore, merely because there was 50% negligence on the part of deceased driver of Truck, as held by the learned Tribunal, the amount of compensation to the extent of 50% cannot be denied to the appellants - original claimants in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) (Supra) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.28943/2022, wherein it has been held that the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from the liability and there is no cap on the amount of compensation payable by the Insurance Company in the policy and it is also not in dispute that the tariff fixed by the Indian Motor Tariff is not applicable in respect of such accident claim. Hence, question of self negligence does not arise on the part of the deceased driver of Truck. Hence, the learned Tribunal has fell in error in slicing down the amount of compensation at 50% i.e. Rs.15,37,580/-. Hence, to that extent, the learned Tribunal has committed an error.
[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, First Appeal No.3364 of 2023 stands dismissed and Cross Objection No.58/2024 in First Appeal No.3364/2023 is partly allowed and impugned judgment and award dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.138/2015 is modified and it is held that the respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein - original opponent Nos.4 and 5 are also jointly and severally liable to indemnify and satisfy the award qua 50% negligence on the part of deceased driver of Truck No.GJ-06-AP-9763 meaning thereby Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:49:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3364/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026 undefined the original claimants are entitled to full amount of compensation of Rs.30,75,160/-.
[8.1] The original opponents are jointly and severally held liable and directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation i.e. Rs.30,75,160/- with the learned Tribunal alongwith accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount i.e. Rs.30,75,160/- with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the original claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure and strictly in accordance with the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal.
[9.0] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid.
[10.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 26 02:49:58 IST 2026