MANJULABEN PRAKASHNATH SAND (JOSHI) WD/O DECD. PRAKASHNATH MUNARAM SAND (JOSHI) vs JAGDISH AJITSINH SODHA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/846/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240422822016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 846 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 847 of 2016
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 147 of 2016
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 846 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2016 In R/CROSS
OBJECTION NO. 147 of 2016
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 846 of 2016
==============================================================
MANJULABEN PRAKASHNATH SAND (JOSHI) WD/O DECD.
PRAKASHNATH MUNARAM SAND (JOSHI)
Versus
JAGDISH AJITSINH SODHA & ORS.
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
SANJIVKUMAR T PATEL(8914) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 29/10/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. An accident occurred on 19.07.2009 between a moped and
a jeep, as a result of the said accident, the rider of the moped,
who was a Railway employee and was aged about 26 years, was
killed. His wife, who was riding pillion, also suffered grievous
injuries.
2. As a result, the pillion rider. i.e., the wife of the deceased,
filed claim petitions both as the legal heir and also on her own
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:50:16 IST 2026
C/FA/846/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240422822016)
behalf for the injuries that she had suffered.
3. The Tribunal while determining the liability has came to
the conclusion that both the driver of the moped as well as the
driver of the jeep were responsible for the accident equally and
attributed negligence in the ratio of 50:50.
4. The Tribunal thereafter assessed the monthly income of
the driver of the moped who was killed in the accident at Rs.
12,300/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,77,400. As far
as claim petition of pillion rider is concerned, the Tribunal
considered that she had not suffered any financial loss and
awarded a just compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by this award the claimant has preferred
these appeals. The insurer has also filed cross-objections in
respect of the claim of the death of the rider.
6. As far as negligence is concerned, the evidence on record
indicates that a chargesheet was laid against the driver of the
jeep. The driver of the jeep was also not examined to establish
that the rider of the moped had contributed to the accident. On
the other hand, the wife of the rider, who was riding pillion, has
stepped into the box and categorically narrated that the accident
occurred only because of the negligence of the driver of the jeep.
In our view, in light of these facts, especially the filing of a
chargesheet and the absence of the driver before the Court, the
apportionment of negligence to the extent of 50:50 would be
incorrect. We, therefore, hold that the driver of the jeep alone
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:50:16 IST 2026
C/FA/846/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240422822016)
was responsible for the accident.
7. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in
our view, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the
deceased-rider at Rs.12,290/-. It has also proceeded to add 15%
future prospects and after deducting one-third and applying
multiplier of 11 arrived at a sum Rs. 12,44,760/- towards loss of
dependency. The sum awarded towards loss of dependency
cannot be found fault with. However, in light of the judgment of
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay
Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the pillion rider wife who
was the only legal heir would be entitled to a sum of 52,000, ₹
apart from the sums awarded under conventional heads. Thus in
all, in respect of the death of the rider of the moped, his wife
would be entitled to the following sums:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 12,44,760/-
Loss of estate 19,500/-
Loss of consortium 52,000/-
Funeral expenses 19,500/-
Total 13,35,760/-
Compensation awarded
6,77,400/-
by the Tribunal after
deducting negligence
Enhanced Amount 6,58,360/-
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:50:16 IST 2026
C/FA/846/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240422822016)
8. As far as the claim of the pillion rider, i.e., the wife of the
deceased moped driver is concerned, the evidence on record
indicates that she has suffered a couple of fractures and also
had to undergo a surgery. The doctor who was examined has
stated that she had suffered disability to the extent of 35% in her
left lower limb and the Tribunal has, therefore, taking into
consideration the consent of the parties, rightly held that she
has suffered a whole body disability of 14%. However, it is
noticed that she has suffered multiple fractures and she has also
undergone an operation. In our view, taking into the fact that
she had to undergo this pain, shock and suffering at her
advanced age, as against the sum of 25,000 awarded it will be ₹
appropriate to award a sum of ₹ 1,50,000 as lumpsum
compensation.
9. Thus, the appeals are disposed of to this extent by
awarding the sums in substitution of the awards passed by the
Tribunal.
10. In view of the above, the cross objection preferred by the
insurer stands dismissed.
11. Hence, the wife of the deceased i.e., the original claimant,
would be entitled to Rs. 6,58,360/- towards enhanced
compensation and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards lump sum
compensation.
12. The enhanced amount as well as the lump sum amount,
shall be deposited by the respondent No.3, i.e., The United India
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:50:16 IST 2026
C/FA/846/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240422822016)
Insurance Co. Ltd., along with 09% interest within a period of
EIGHT WEEKS from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
13. The enhanced amount as well as the lumpsum amount
which shall be deposited pursuant to this order, shall be
disbursed to the claimant upon proper verification through NEFT
/ RTGS.
14. R & P, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
15. Pending Civil Application, if any, shall stand consigned to
record.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
YASH ARORA
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:50:16 IST 2026