KESHIBEN AJMALJI THAKOR vs JIGNASABEN ISHWARBHAI PATEL

C/FA/3514/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240416782017)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3514 of 2017
==================================================
KESHIBEN AJMALJI THAKOR & ORS.
Versus
JIGNASABEN ISHWARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance :
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 02/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
[1] An accident occurred on 24.5.2015 between two two-
wheelers, namely a motorcycle and a Honda Activa, as a result
of which the rider of the motorcycle was killed. His legal heirs
consequently filed a claim petition and the Tribunal, on
assessing the evidence, came to the conclusion that both the
rider of the motorcycle as well as the rider of the Activa had
contributed to the accident, and apportioned negligence in the
ratio of 25:75. The Tribunal also thereafter proceeded to award
a sum of Rs.10,65,750/-.
[2] Being aggrieved by this award, the claimants have
preferred the present appeal both against the finding of the
Tribunal regarding negligence and also regarding the quantum
of compensation.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 12:00:58 IST 2026

C/FA/3514/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240416782017)
[3] Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the
charge-sheet was laid against the rider of the Activa, and
therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of
Mangla Ram versus the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and
others reported in 2018 (5) SCC 656, negligence would have
to be attributed entirely to the rider of the Activa.
[4] Learned counsel for the insurer, on the other hand,
contends that the rider of the Activa was examined and she has
categorically deposed that she had parked the Honda Activa by
the side of the road, and the rider of the motorcycle came and
collided with the Activa, resulting in the fatality. It is, therefore,
contended that the apportionment of negligence was just and
proper.
[5] As regards the negligence is concerned, the insurer of the
Activa has not preferred an appeal, thereby accepting the
negligence to the extent of 75% on its behalf. It is sought to be
contended by the rider of the Activa that the accident occurred
when she had parked her two-wheeler. However, the panchnama
indicates that there were scratch marks on the road, which
would, therefore, indicate that the accident occurred when both
the vehicles were in motion. If both the vehicles were in motion,
the entire deposition of the rider of the Activa will have to be
discarded, and taking into consideration the charge-sheet filed
after investigation by the police, we are constrained to hold that
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 12:00:58 IST 2026

C/FA/3514/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240416782017)
it was only the rider of the Activa who was responsible for the
accident. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal is set aside.
[6] As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has
assessed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The deceased was
working as a mason. The minimum wages prevailing for a
skilled labourer as on the date of the accident was Rs.7,644/-.
We deem it proper to accept this as the appropriate income, as
against the Rs.6,000/- determined by the Tribunal. As the
deceased was aged 35 years, a multiplier of 16 will have to be
applied.
[7] In light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 ,
each of the legal heirs, i.e., six would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,12,000/- (52,000 x 6) towards loss of consortium. The
appellants are also entitled for Rs.19,500/- towards the loss to
estate and Rs.19,500/- towards funeral expenses.
[8] Thus, in substitution of the award passed by the Tribunal,
the claimants would be entitled to the following sums:-
Income (7644 x 12) Rs.91,728/-
Prospective Income (40%) Rs.36,691.2/-
Total Rs.1,28,419.2/-
Deduction (1/4th) - Rs.32,104.8/-
Dependency Loss Rs.96,314.4/-
Multiplier X 16
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 12:00:58 IST 2026

C/FA/3514/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240416782017)
Future Loss of income Rs.15,41,030.4/-
Consortium (52,000x6) Rs.3,12,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.19,500/-
Funeral Rs.19,500/-
Total Rs.18,92,030.4/-
Awarded Rs.10,65,750/-
Additional Compensation Rs.8,26,281/-
[9] The appeal is hereby partly allowed. The claimants are
entitled to an additional sum of Rs.8,26.281/- 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.
[10] The enhanced amount which shall be deposited by the
Insurance Company pursuant to this order shall be disbursed to
the claimants upon proper verification by NEFT / RTGS.
[11] R & P if called for, be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 12:00:58 IST 2026