VAIBHAV VISHNUBHAI PATEL, HEIRS OF DECEASED VISHNUBHAI PATEL vs SUKHDEVSING BHAJANSINH
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1023/2011 (GJHC240425922011) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1023 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3262 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1025 of 2011
==========================================================
VAIBHAV VISHNUBHAI PATEL, HEIRS OF DECEASED VISHNUBHAI
PATEL & ANR.
Versus
SUKHDEVSING BHAJANSINH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AESHA GANDHI for MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 02/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. On 29.5.1999, an accident occurred between truck
and a Maruti car, as a result of which, the driver of the
Maruti car- Vishnubhai Patel, his wife - Kokilaben Patel
and out of their two sons Vaibhav & Nikhil, Nikhil were
killed at the spot. The surviving son, i.e. Vaibhav,
therefore, filed a claim petition seeking compensation for
the death of his father, mother and brother.
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1023/2011 (GJHC240425922011) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
2. The fact that the accident occurred is not in dispute.
It is also not in dispute that a charge-sheet was laid
against the driver of the truck. The Tribunal after
assessing the evidence came to the conclusion that the
driver of the truck was responsible to the extent of 80%
and the driver of the car was responsible to the extent of
20%. It, thereafter, assessed the compensation payable
for the death of Vishnubhai Patel as Rs.8,63,974/- by
taking the annual income as Rs.1,33,371/-. The Tribunal
also awarded a sum of Rs.15,98,000/- for the death of
Kokilaben by taking the annual income at Rs.1,82,885/-.
3. Being aggrieved by these awards, both the
Insurance Company as well as the claimant is in appeal.
4. The Insurance Company is in appeal only in so far as
it relates to the award of compensation in respect of
Kokilaben and also seeks to contend that the negligence
attributed to the owner of the truck to the extent of 80%
was incorrect.
5. The claimant, on the other hand, is in appeal
contending that the attribution of negligence to the
extent of 20% on Vishnubhai Patel, the driver of the
Maruti car, was completely wrong and also on the ground
that the compensation awarded was inadequate.
6. As far as the aspect of negligence is concerned, the
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1023/2011 (GJHC240425922011) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Tribunal has recorded a finding that the width of the road
was wide enough for both the vehicles to pass without
any impediments. It has thereafter gone on to observe
that both the driver of the truck as well as the driver of
the Maruti car were negligent and therefore attributed
compensation to the extent of 80% and 20%.
7. In our view, this observation of the Tribunal could
not be justified, firstly because the driver of the truck who
was an eye witness to the accident and who had obviously
a clear sight of the road was not examined in support of
the defense of the Insurance Company. Secondly, the
occupant of the car who survived, i.e. Vaibhav, was
examined and during the course of the cross-
examination, a suggestion was made by the Insurance
Company itself that the truck driver was responsible for
the accident. These two factors by themselves would
clearly indicate that the cause of the accident was
essentially due to the negligent act of the driver of the
truck. It may also be pertinent to notice here that a
charge-sheet has also been laid only against the driver of
the truck and this only confirms the negligence on his
part.
8. In the light of these factors, in our view, the
observation of the Tribunal that the driver of the car was
negligent to the extent of 20% cannot be sustained and
the same is accordingly set aside.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1023/2011 (GJHC240425922011) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
9. As far as the claim for compensation for death of
Vishnubhai Patel is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded
the following sums.
First Appeal No.1023 of 2011
Income Rs.1,33,371/-
Deduction (1/3rd) Rs.44,457/-
Dependency Loss Rs.88,914/-
Multiplier X 12
Future Loss of Income Rs.10,66,968/-
Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
Funeral Rs.3,000/-
Total Rs.10,79,968/-
Negligence (20%) Rs.2,15,994/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.8,63,974/-
10. The income that is ascertained by the Tribunal is on
the basis of the IT returns filed by Vishnubhai Patel and
therefore, no fault can be attributed to this ascertainment
of income. However, it is noticed that future prospects as
laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case
has not been added to the income. The multiplier adopted
by the Tribunal is 12. Vishnubhai Patel was aged about 38
years as on the date of the accident and, therefore, the
applicable multiplier would be 15. The compensation,
therefore, payable for the death of Vishnubhai Patel
would be as follows:
First Appeal No.1023 of 2011
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1023/2011 (GJHC240425922011) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Income Rs.1,33,371/-
Prospective Income (40%) Rs.53,348/-
Total Rs.1,86,719/-
Deduction (1/3rd) Rs.62,239/-
Dependency Loss Rs.1,24,480/-
Multiplier X 15
Future Loss of Income Rs.18,67,200/-
Consortium Rs.52,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.19,500/-
Funeral Rs.19,500/-
Total Rs.19,58,200/-
Awarded Rs.8,63,974/-
Additional Compensation Rs.10,94,226/-
11. As a consequence, the appeal in relation to the
compensation payable to Vishnubhai Patel is allowed in
part and the compensation is enhanced by a sum of
Rs.8,63,974/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is
9%.
12. In view of our finding recorded above, the insurer of
the truck will alone be liable for payment of the
compensation.
13. As far as the claim of compensation of Kokilaben
Patel is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding
that she was 33 years as on the date of the accident. It
has also determined the annual income at Rs.1,82,885/-.
14. Learned counsel for the claimant points out that as
per the income tax the returns filed on 4.7.1997 for the
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1023/2011 (GJHC240425922011) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
assessment year 1997-1998, the tax return indicated that
Kokilaben had an income of Rs.2,10,482/- and she,
therefore, submits that the income adopted by the
Tribunal would have to be revised.
15. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company does
not dispute this assertion but contends that the income
tax payable on this amount will have to be deducted.
16. Having regard to the fact that there would be an
exemption of payment of income tax upto Rs.2 lakhs and
the income declared is only Rs.2,10,482/-, in the peculiar
facts of this case, in our view, it will not be necessary to
deduct the minor amount of income tax payable on
Rs.2,10,482/-. Consequently, the income of Kokilaben is
taken as Rs.2,10,482/-.
17. To this future prospects at 40% will have to be
added as per the decision rendered in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and a deduction of
1/3rd will have to be made towards personal expenses.
18. A multiplier of 16 will have to be adopted since
Kokilaben was 33 years as on the date of the accident.
19. As a consequence, son of Kokilaben, i.e. Vaibhav
Vishnubhai Patel, would be entitled to the following sums
as compensation:
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1023/2011 (GJHC240425922011) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
First Appeal No.1025 of 2011
Income Rs.2,10,482/-
Prospective Income (40%) Rs.84,913/-
Total Rs.2,94,675/-
Deduction (1/3rd) Rs.98,225/-
Dependency Loss Rs.1,96,450/-
Multiplier X 16
Future Loss of Income Rs.31,43,200/-
Consortium Rs.52,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.19,500/-
Funeral Rs.19,500/-
Total Rs.32,34,200/-
Awarded Rs.15,98,000/-
Additional Compensation Rs.16,36,200/-
20. As a consequence the appeal of the Insurance
Company i.e. First Appeal No.3262 of 2010, stands
DISMISSED and the appeals filed by the claimants being
First Appeal Nos.1023 of 2011 and 1025 of 2011, are
ALLOWED in PART.
21. Ten weeks’ time is granted to the Insurance
Company to deposit the enhanced amount. The enhanced
amount shall be deposited with interest @ 9%, i.e. from
the date filing of the claim petition till payment.
22. R & P, if received, to be sent back forthwith.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026