RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs MAKWANA MOHANBHAI BHALABHAI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/239/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240878732025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 of 2026
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 206 of 2026
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 of 2026
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
Versus
MAKWANA MOHANBHAI BHALABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No negligence . 1
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 03/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. An accident occurred on 20.11.2021 between a two-
wheeler and a car. This resulted in the death of the 27
year old bank employee, who was driving the two-
wheeler. Consequently, his legal heirs filed a claim
petition seeking compensation from the insurer of the car.
2. The Tribunal, on assessing the evidence, came to the
conclusion that both the rider of the two-wheeler as well
as the driver of the car were responsible for the accident,
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 17:41:15 IST 2026
C/FA/239/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240878732025)
and apportioned negligence in the ratio of 10:90. The
Tribunal, thereafter, assessed the monthly income at
₹32,824/- and proceeded to award a total compensation
of ₹51,10,000. The Tribunal also deducted a sum of ₹10
lakhs, which the legal heirs had received as a result of the
policy which had been taken by the employer- Bank of
Baroda.
3. Being aggrieved by this award, both the insurer of
the car as well as the claimants are in appeal.
4. The insurer of the car contends that the attribution
of negligence only to the extent of 10% was incorrect,
especially when the driver of the car was examined, he
clearly stated that the accident occurred when the
deceased moved from the left side of the road to the right
side of the road and came into contact with the car. It is
also argued that the deceased was not wearing a helmet,
and taking these facts into consideration, the negligence
attributed ought to be of a larger extent.
5. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is not in dispute
that the police, after investigation, have laid a charge-
sheet against the driver of the car. This prima facie
establishes the negligence on his part for the purposes of
determining negligence in a motor vehicle proceeding. It
is no doubt true that the driver of the car has been
examined, and his evidence is also to the effect that the
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 17:41:15 IST 2026
C/FA/239/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240878732025)
rider of the two-wheeler, i.e. the deceased, was
responsible for the accident. But, in the course of his
cross-examination, he has himself admitted that he was
not sure as to what was the cause of the accident. This
ambiguous statement of the driver of the car by itself
establishes that he was not sure about the negligence,
and this deposition, read in the context of the charge-
sheet laid against him, would clearly indicate that the
negligence was solely on the part of the driver of the car.
6. The non-wearing of a helmet by the two-wheeler
rider, i.e. the deceased, cannot obviously be a
contributing factor to the accident, but could be a factor
which would lead to an increased chance of injuries,
including death. In order to establish contributory
negligence, the non-wearing of a helmet should
necessarily have contributed to the accident. Such not
being the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the
deceased was responsible to the extent of 10% cannot be
sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
7. As far as the quantum is concerned, the salary slip
indicates that the deceased was earning a sum of
₹33,024/-. Out of this amount, only the professional tax
would have to be deducted, and this would result in his
income being ₹32,824/-. As he was aged 27 years, a
multiplier of 17 would have to be adopted, and 50%
would have to be added to the said monthly income. Out
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 17:41:15 IST 2026
C/FA/239/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240878732025)
of this, 1/5th has to be deducted towards his personal
expenses, and consequently towards loss of dependency,
his parents would be entitled to ₹66,96,096/-.
8. The Tribunal has deducted a sum of ₹10 lakhs,
which was the proceeds of the policy taken out by the
Bank of Baroda in favour of its employee, i.e. the
deceased.
9. Learned counsel for the insurer seeks to place
reliance on a Division Bench ruling rendered by this
Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company v.
Nishith Kirankumar Raval and others (Date of decision
13/17.11.2014 in First Appeal No.4040 of 2007 and allied
matters). In this decision, the Division Bench has held
that if the premium is paid by the employer, the sums
paid out of the proceeds of the policy would have to be
deducted.
10. However, learned counsel for the claimants points
out that in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Managing Director, KSRTC v. P. Chandramouli and
others reported in 2926 SCC OnLine SC 375, the case law
in this regard has been considered in detail and it has
been categorically held that if, as a measure of social
justice, the employer had taken out a policy and there
was no contribution from the employee, even then the
sums received under such a scheme cannot be deducted.
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 17:41:15 IST 2026
C/FA/239/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240878732025)
11. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has placed
reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Helen C.
Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
and also United India Insurance Company v. Patricia Jean
Mahajan. It has also taken into consideration the decision
rendered in Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance
Company Limited, and has extracted the relevant
portions. The Supreme Court has, ultimately, held that
even if the premium was paid by the employer and there
was no contribution from the employee, the proceeds of
any funds that the legal heirs of the deceased receive
cannot be deducted from the compensation amount. In
that view of the matter, the sum of ₹10 lakhs deducted by
the Tribunal towards the policy proceeds cannot be
sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
12. Additionally, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
₹60,000/- towards medical expenses. The same is
maintained, as the evidence indicates that this expense
was incurred by the claimants. However, the major
portion of the medical expenses, amounting to ₹16.05
lakhs, was, in fact, incurred by the insurer who had
issued a policy at the behest of the employer. It is obvious
that the claimants will not be entitled for this amount of
₹16.05 lakhs since they had not spent the said amount for
it to be reimbursed to them.
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 17:41:15 IST 2026
C/FA/239/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240878732025)
13. Thus, considering the ratio laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants would be entitled to
following sums:
Loss of Dependency ₹66,96,096/-
Loss of Consortium
(52,000 x 4)
₹2,08,000/-
Loss of Estate ₹19,500/-
Funeral Expenses ₹19,500/-
Medical expenses ₹60,000/-
Total compensation ₹70,03,096/-
Tribunal awarded
Amount
₹51,10,000/-
Enhanced
Compensation
₹18,93,096/-
14. The claimants are entitled to an additional sum of
₹18,93,096/- with 9% interest from the date of the claim
petition filed by the claimants before the Tribunal till its
realization. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by
the Insurance Company within a period of TEN weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. The enhanced amount which shall be deposited
pursuant to this order shall be disbursed to the claimants
upon proper verification by NEFT / RTGS.
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 17:41:15 IST 2026
C/FA/239/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2026
(GJHC240878732025)
16. The appeal of the insurer as well as the appeal of the
claimants are DISPOSED OF in the aforesaid terms.
Pending Civil Application shall stand consigned to record.
17. R & P if called for, be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 17:41:15 IST 2026