Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Kiranba Shailendrasinh Jadeja on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/144/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 of 2025
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 164 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
KIRANBA SHAILENDRASINH JADEJA & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 4,6
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) The appellant - original respondent no.2 New India Assurance Company Ltd., has assailed the judgment and award dated 04.11.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhachau, Kachchh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.02 of 2020, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 22:19:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/144/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"
for short).
2) The original claimants - respondent nos.1 to 4 herein (legal heirs of the deceased) have objected the present appeal by filing cross objections being Cross Objection No.164 of 2024, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the income of the deceased, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate.
3) It is the case of the original claimants that on 19.06.1999, the deceased namely Shailendrasinh Kirtisinh Jadeja (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") was going by his Hero Honda Motorcycle No. GJ-12-B-5457 from Bhachau to Rapar and at that time near about Khirai to Rapar road, the opponent no.1 driver of Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-12-T-6787 came from wrong side by in rash and negligent manner and with excessive speed and dashed with the motorcycle and accident occurred. As a result of which the deceased sustained various injuries and later succumbed to it. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- in absence of any evidence that too when the incident took place in the year 1999 at that time minimum wages was only Rs.1,800/- to Rs.2,000/- only and further committed error in not considering Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 22:19:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/144/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined the contributory negligence of the deceased. Further no proof of agriculture land or income is produced on record though the learned Tribunal has considered his income. At least 10 to 20% contributory negligence is required to be considered. As per the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, in para 57 in absence of any proof of income minimum wages is required to be considered. Hence, she has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate Mr. R. P. Raval, for original claimants has opposed the present appeal on the ground that documentary evidence are produced on record, the deceased was LIC Agent and accounts of commission which he had received is produced at Exhibit 75. The deceased was also in the business of partnership firm and one partner was examined at Exhibit 55 who stated on oath that from the business of partnership firm individual partner gets only profit of Rs.5,000/- per month.
Considering these two aspects as well as other income including agriculture income though property was joint property but being elder son the deceased was taking care of the said property from which Rs.30 to 50,000/- income was there and account maintained by the deceased is also produced on record. This is the case that in absence of any material the Tribunal has committed error in not to consider the minimum wages. Not only that the Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month income of the deceased and also have to award loss of consortium to all the four dependents. He has further submitted that so far contributory negligence is concerned the driver and owner of the Truck though served but did not step into witness box and vehicle was heavy so Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 22:19:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/144/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined negligence is considered properly after appreciating the evidence. There was no contributory negligence of the part of the deceased, hence, he has requested to allow the cross objections and dismiss the appeal.
6) Having heard learned Advocates of the respective parties. A perusal of record reveals that in order to prove the claim the witness namely Kiranba Shailendrasinh Jadeja was examined at Exhibit 35, who has deposed about the factum of accident and income of the deceased. The involvement of the vehicle is not in dispute. As per the evidence on record the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of truck is sole negligent. As alleged incident took place on the highway while taking turn the driver of heavy vehicle has to take care and degree and standard of care then small vehicle, hence, the learned Tribunal has properly held truck driver negligent as complaint is filed against him and charge-sheet is also filed against him. Therefore, question of contributory negligence does not arise and arguments by the learned Advocate for Insurance Company is not acceptable.
7) As per the case of claimants the deceased was 26 years old having wife, two daughters and mother. He was the sole breadwinner of the family and was doing business of Auto Consultant, LIC Agent and it is stated that his monthly income was Rs.12,000/-. The alleged incident took place in the year 1999 and below Exhibit 75 documentary evidence and bills regarding deceased working as LIC Agent and getting commission. Further the deceased was working as RTO Agent having business under the name and style of Aakar Auto Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 22:19:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/144/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Consultant and deposition of partner is on record and partnership deed is at Exhibit 77. One witness namely Chandulal N. Prajapati is examined at Exhibit 55, who is the partner of the partnership firm who stated on oath that the monthly profit and share of individual partner was Rs.5,000/-. As the deceased was Diploma Engineer and was working as RTO Agent and LIC Agent having Aakar Auto Consultancy and agriculture land, merely incident took place in the year 1999 is not a ground to consider income on lesser side or minimum wages as sufficient evidence and material are produced on record and other documents are not available on due to Earthquake in the year 2001 and due to which other documents were lost. Further in view of the judgment of the Hon'bel Apex Court in case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 198, wherein, it is observed that merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. Considering the aforesaid facts and business background and engagement in different profession the income of the deceased is required to be considered as Rs.9,000/-. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced based on gauge work also and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.9,000/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 26 years at the time of accident, future prospective income as 40% and as the deceased left behind four dependents 1/4 deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 17 were considered by the learned Tribunal as Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 22:19:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/144/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 which are just and proper.
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,600/- which comes to Rs.12,600/- and 1/4 amount is required to be deducted towards the personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,150/- and the net amount comes to Rs.9,450/-. In view of above the amount towards future loss of income is required to be reassessed as Rs.9,450/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.19,27,800/-. Therefore, the respondent nos.1 to 4 - original claimants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.4,28,400/- (Rs.19,27,800/- - Rs.14,99,400/-) under the head of loss of dependency.
9) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the three conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the respondent nos.1 to 4 - original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral expenses).
10) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 22:19:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/144/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the respondent nos.1 to 4 - original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased they are entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.1,93,600/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 4). Therefore, the respondent nos.1 to 4 are entitled for additional amount of Rs.1,53,600/- under the head of loss of consortium.
11) As discussed above, the respondent nos.1 to 3 - original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of dependency Rs.14,99,400/- Rs.19,27,800/-
including additional amount of
Rs.4,28,400/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional amount of
Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional amount of
Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,93,600/-
including additional amount of
Rs.1,53,600/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 4)
Total compensation Rs.15,69,400/- Rs.21,57,700/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.5,88,300/-
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 22:19:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/144/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
12) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.15,69,400/-, however, as discussed above the respondent nos.1 to 4 - original claimants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.5,88,300/- (Rs.19,27,800/- - Rs.14,99,400/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
13) Hence, present appeal is dismissed and Cross Objection No.164 of 2025 filed by the original claimants stands allowed. The judgment and award dated 04.11.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhachau, Kachchh, in MAC Petition No.02 of 2020 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. Appellant Insurance Company shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.5,88,300/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
15) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 25 22:19:59 IST 2025