SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs MANOJ JERAMBHAI VASOYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1826/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1826 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
MANOJ JERAMBHAI VASOYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MEET D PANSURIA(10170) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 04/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment
and award dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux), at Jamnagar, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.20 of 2011, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.14,54,515/-
as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization.
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/FA/1826/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are
that on 05.09.2010, Manojbhai Jerambhai Vasoya was going
towards Khijadiya on Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-10-
S-7175. When he reached at the place of accident, in the
meantime, opponent No.1 came by driving the truck bearing
registration No.GJ-10-W-6240 and took a turn on the
Khambhaliya Road in a rash and negligent manner so as to
endanger the human life without giving any indicator and
dashed with the Motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the
accident, Manojbhai Jerambhai Vasoya sustained grievous
injuries.
2.1. Having been served with the notice of claim petition, the
opponent No.3-Insurance Company appeared through its
advocate and filed Written Statement at Exhibit-12, 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-15, for
determination.
“1. Whether the applicant proves that he
sustained injuries due to rash and/or negligent
driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom?
3. What order and award?”
2.3. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, oral as well
as documentary evidence adduced on record and the
submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/FA/1826/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.14,54,515/- 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 appellant-Insurance Company
preferred the captioned appeal on the ground of negligence as
well as on the ground of quantum.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4. Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellant- Insurance Company, vehemently submitted
that the charge-sheet came to be filed against the original
claimant/respondent No.1-herein, therefore, the learned
Tribunal ought to have considered that the original claimant was
solely negligent for causing the accident. However, the learned
Tribunal had not considered this material fact and held the
driver of the offending truck bearing registration No.GJ-10-W-
6240 negligent to the extent of 80% for causing the accident. He
further submitted that the findings returned by the learned
Tribunal is not sustainable in view of the evidence on record.
4.1. Learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company
further submitted that at the time of accident, the original
claimant was earning a sum of Rs.11,917/-. But during the
pendency of the claim petition, his income has increased
substantially and at the time of decision of the claim petition,
the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.28,935/-, therefore, the
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/FA/1826/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
claimant has not sustained any future economic loss. Hence, the
learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded the compensation
under the head of future economic loss. He further submitted
that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified
to the aforesaid extent.
5. Per contra, Mr. Meet D. Pansuria, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the original claimant/respondent No.1-
herein, vehemently submitted that the accident had occurred
owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the truck involved in
the accident. He further submitted that the FIR also came to be
lodged against the driver of the truck. However, the charge-sheet
came to be filed against the claimant. The claimant has faced the
trial and the learned Trial Court had acquitted him from all the
charges. He further submitted that considering the manner of
occurrence of accident, the learned Tribunal has rightly held
that the driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 80% for
causing the accident. He further submitted that neither the
owner of the truck nor the driver of the said truck stepped into
the witness box to prove that the driver of the truck was not
negligent for causing the accident. Therefore, the version of the
claimant remained unrebutted before the learned Tribunal.
Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of
negligence.
5.1. Learned advocate for the original claimant/respondent
No.1-herein further submitted that at the time of accident, the
claimant was earning a sum of Rs.11,917/-. The learned
Tribunal has not considered the enhanced income of the
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/FA/1826/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
claimant to consider the future loss of income. He further
submitted that in the said accident, the claimant had sustained
the injuries on his left leg and resultantly, the left leg was
amputated below the knee. He further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has awarded the just compensation, therefore,
the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions canvassed by 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 negligence as well as on the ground of quantum .
7. So far as the negligence is concerned, perusal of the record
transpires that the claimant had lodged the FIR against the
driver of the truck. However, after completion of the
investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet
against the claimant. Perusal of the record further reveals that it
is the case of the claimant that he was run over by the rear
wheel of the truck. Perusal of the Panchnama and FIR also
supported the version of the claimant. It is evident from the
record that the accident occurred at the curve, the driver of the
truck took the sudden turn without any indicator. It is also
evident from the record that the driver of the truck has not
stepped into the witness box, therefore, the learned Tribunal has
not committed any error in holding the driver of the truck
negligent to the extent of 80% but at the same time, it is
apparent from the record that the charge-sheet to be filed
against the claimant. In the case of National Insurance
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/FA/1826/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
Company Limited Versus Chamundeswari & Ors. , reported in
(2021) 18 SCC 596, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
when there is some contradiction between the evidence adduced
before the learned Tribunal and police papers, the learned
Tribunal has to give more weightage to the evidence adduced
before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, considering the evidence
adduced by the learned Tribunal, I am of the considered view
that the learned Tribunal has taken holistic view in deciding the
issue of negligence. Hence, there is no infirmity in the findings
returned by the learned Tribunal under the issue of negligence.
8. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal
has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.11,917/-. But it
is evident from the record that during the pendency of the claim
petition, the income of the claimant has increased from
Rs.11,917/- to Rs.28,935/-. There are various reasons for
increasing the income of the claimant. The income is bound to
increase so as to meet out the cost of living index and rate of
inflation. Merely, during the pendency of the claim petition and
after the date of accident, the income of the claimant has
increased is no ground to disallow the claim of the claimant
under the head of future loss of income. In the case of Soni
Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. ,
reported in 2026 ACJ 109 , wherein at para Nos. 11 & 12, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-:-
“11. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of the
accident, the claimant-appellant was serving in the
Indian Army, a profession which demands highest
standards of physical fitness, alertness, and
endurance. Any impairment or disability resulting from
the said accident is, therefore, not merely a personal
affliction but one that has a direct bearing on his
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026
C/FA/1826/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
ability to effectively discharge his duties. Such an
impairment is likely to adversely affect his efficiency,
career prospects both in service or thereafter, and
overall service capability in a profession where
physical robustness is a fundamental prerequisite,
thereby justifying compensation as was awarded by
the Tribunal.
12. The mere fact that the claimant-appellant
continued in service or did not seek premature
retirement could not have been determinative of the
issue, as loss of earning capacity may subsist
notwithstanding continuation in employment.
Likewise, loss of promotional prospects is required to
be assessed on reasonable probabilities having regard
to the nature of employment and extent of disability,
and does not require strict proof. The High Court
substantially reduced the compensation on the ground
that the amounts awarded were excessive. Such an
exercise amounts to re- appreciation of evidence which
is beyond the permissible scope of appellate
jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act.”
9. Thus, considering the dicta of Soni Sharma ( supra ), the
contentions raised by the learned advocate for the Insurance
Company is not sustainable. Hence, rejected.
10. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal is
devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
11. Statutory amount, if any, lying/deposited with the Registry
of this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith.
12. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 19 08:19:30 IST 2026