VANITABEN SHANKARBHAI VASAVA vs NARESHBHAI DEVANJIBHAI VASAVA

C/FA/369/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416912015)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 369 of 2015
==================================================
VANITABEN SHANKARBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
Versus
NARESHBHAI DEVANJIBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance :
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 26/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
[1] A claim petition was filed by Vanitaben Shankarbhai
Vasava contending that her husband was riding pillion on a
motorcycle belonging to his colleague on 14.08.2007. The said
motorcycle was running short of petrol, and hence, the rider of
the motorcycle had stopped the motorcycle to fill up the petrol.
However, at that time, a motorcycle driven by Valjibhai
Chamabhai Padavi came from behind and hit the motorcycle in
which her husband was riding pillion. She submitted that as a
result of this collision, her husband sustained serious injuries
and ultimately passed away on 18.08.2007.
[2] She, therefore, sought compensation from both the owner
and insurer of the motorcycle on which her husband was riding
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:11 IST 2026

C/FA/369/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416912015)
pillion, and also against the owner of the motorcycle which hit
the motorcycle on which her husband was riding pillion from
behind. The offending motorcycle, i.e., motorcycle which hit her
husband's motorcycle from behind, was not insured, and hence,
only its owner was arrayed as a party.
[3] The Tribunal, on considering the evidence, found that the
motorcycle driven by Valjibhai Chamabhai Padavi, which hit the
motorcycle from behind, was charge-sheeted, and therefore, the
negligence was entirely on the part of the driver, i.e., Valjibhai
Chamabhai Padavi, and there was no negligence of any kind on
the part of the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased
was riding pillion, i.e., the motorcycle owned by Nareshbhai.
The Tribunal accordingly exonerated Nareshbhai Devanjibhai
Vasava and its insurer, Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited, and held that Valjibhai Chamanbhai Vasava, the owner
of the offending motorcycle, was alone responsible for the
accident. It thereafter proceeded to assess the monthly income
of the deceased at Rs.12,500/-, and after making the necessary
deductions and applying the appropriate multiplier, awarded a
sum of Rs.22,80,000/-.
[4] Being aggrieved, essentially by the exoneration of the
owner of the motorcycle on which her husband was riding
pillion, and also on the ground of inadequacy of compensation,
Vanitaben Shankarbhai Vasava has preferred this appeal.
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:11 IST 2026

C/FA/369/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416912015)
[5] Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that
absolving the rider of the motorcycle on which her husband was
travelling only because a charge-sheet was laid against Valjibhai
Chamanbhai Vasava was improper. It is argued that admittedly
the motorcycle had stopped at the edge of the road, and this
stoppage was essentially the reason for the accident. It is
sought to be contended that this stoppage, ostensibly on the
ground of shortage of petrol, was the real cause of the accident,
and therefore, absolving the rider of the said motorcycle was
erroneous. It is contended that even if the charge-sheet had
been laid against Valjibhai Chamanbhai Vasava, this negligence
on the part of the rider of the motorcycle on which her husband
was travelling could not be ignored.
[6] As far as the quantum is concerned, it is pointed out that
the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.13,225/-, and out of that
only a sum of Rs.80/- ought to have been deducted towards
professional tax, thereby meaning that the deceased was
earning a sum of Rs.13,145/-. However, the Tribunal had
assessed the income at Rs.12,500/-, which was improper.
[7] Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the
insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding
pillion, contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the rider
of the motorcycle which hit the insured motorcycle from behind
was completely responsible could not be found fault with,
especially when a charge-sheet had been laid against the rider
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:11 IST 2026

C/FA/369/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416912015)
of the said motorcycle. It is sought to be contended that since
the offending motorcycle was not insured, an attempt was being
made to contend that it was a case of composite negligence. He,
therefore, urged this Court to dismiss the appeal.
[8] At the outset, in order to determine the issue between the
parties, primarily, the question of negligence will have to be
considered. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the
motorcycle on which Vanitaben's husband was travelling did
stop, and on such stoppage of the motorcycle, the motorcycle
coming from behind collided with it, which, in turn, resulted in
serious injuries to Vanitaben's husband and his ultimate death.
[9] In a case of such nature, the act of the rider of the
motorcycle suddenly stopping his motorcycle, ostensibly on the
ground of shortage of petrol, would indicate that there was an
element of negligence on his part also. It is no doubt true that
the rider of the motorcycle coming from behind was obviously
aware of the motorcycle in front of him and ought to have taken
steps to prevent the collision, but the fact remains that the
collision occurred only because of the stoppage of the
motorcycle on which Vanitaben's husband was travelling.
[10] Given this set of peculiar facts, even though a charge-
sheet had been laid against Valjibhai Chamanbhai Vasava, i.e.,
the driver of the motorcycle who hit Vanitaben's husband's
motorcycle from behind, we are inclined to hold that
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:11 IST 2026

C/FA/369/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416912015)
Nareshbhai Devanjibhai Vasava, i.e., the owner of the
motorcycle on which Vanitaben's husband was travelling, was
also negligent to the extent of 25%. Consequently, we hold that
the insurer of this motorcycle will be liable to pay 25% of the
compensation that is to be awarded.
[11] The evidence on record, especially the pay slip, indicates
that the deceased was earning or drawing a sum of Rs.13,225/-
as his gross monthly emoluments. Out of this, only the
professional tax of Rs.80/- is to be deducted, and this would
result in his monthly income being Rs.13,145/-.
[12] As the deceased was aged about 38 years and was a
government employee, 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 , 50% would have to be added as future
prospects, and a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied.
Since, there were four dependants, one-fourth would have to be
deducted towards his personal expenses, resulting in his
monthly income being Rs.1,77,457.5/- for the purpose of
calculating loss of dependency. Consequently, the claimant
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.26,61,862.5/- towards loss of
dependency.
[13] The claimants, being other the wife, and children, would
each be entitled to a sum of Rs.52,000 x 4 =2,08,000/- towards
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:11 IST 2026

C/FA/369/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416912015)
loss of consortium, apart from Rs.19,500+19,500=39,000/-
under conventional heads. In all, the claimants would be
entitled to a sum of Rs.29,08,862.5/-.
[14] Thus, in substitution of the award passed by the Tribunal,
the claimants would be entitled to the following sums:-
Income Rs.1,57,740/-
Prospective Income (50%) Rs.78,870/-
Total Rs.2,36,610/-
Deduction (¼ th) - Rs.59,152.50/-
Dependency Loss Rs.1,77,457.5/-
Multiplier X 15
Future Loss of income Rs.26,61,862.5/-
Consortium Rs.2,08,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.19,500/-
Funeral Rs.19,500/-
Total Rs.29,08,862.5/-
Awarded Rs.22,80,000/-
Additional Compensation Rs.6,28,862.5/-
[15] Out of this sum, 25% would be the liability of Reliance
General Insurance Company, which had insured the motorcycle
on which the deceased was travelling. Reliance General
Insurance Company would, therefore, have to pay a sum of
Rs.7,27,216/- to the claimants, along with interest at 9% per
annum.
[16] Insofar as the remaining 75% of the compensation is
concerned, as held by the Tribunal, the same would have to be
recovered from Valjibhai Chamabhai Padavi, the fourth
respondent herein.
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:11 IST 2026

C/FA/369/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416912015)
[17] 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.
[18] 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.
[19] The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
[20] 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 7 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:11 IST 2026