NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs GAFURNABI WD/O AZIZKHA NAZIRKHA LUHAR

C/FA/2000/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240431032016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2000 of 2016
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 251 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2000 of 2016
==========================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
GAFURNABI WD/O AZIZKHA NAZIRKHA LUHAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 7
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5,8
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/10/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred
to, as they stood before the learned tribunal, i.e. original
claimants and original opponents.
2. By way of this appeal, filed under Section 176 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, ‘MV Act’), the appellant-original
Opponent No.5 has challenged the judgment and award dated
04.11.2015, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Banaskantha at Deesa, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 381 of 2009 (Old MACP No. 1352 of 1994), whereby,
the tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.3,79,000/- along
with 9% interest per annum, with proportionate costs and
fastening liability on original Opponent Nos. 4 and 5 to
indemnify the claim, by exonerating original Opponent Nos. 1 to
3.
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:53 IST 2026

C/FA/2000/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240431032016)
2.1 The original claimants – Opponent Nos. 1 to 5, herein, have
filed Cross-objection No. 251 of 2025, seeking enhancement of
the compensation granted by the tribunal.
3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal,
are that on 21.06.1994, while the deceased Azizkha Nazirkha
Luhar was proceeding driving the tanker, bearing registration
No. RJ-20-G-0078, and when he was about three kilometers
away from Panthawada village, Original Opponent No.1-driver
came driving his truck, bearing registration No. RJ-23-G-0117,
in rash and negligent manner and dashed the same with the
truck of the deceased Azizkha from front side. On account of
that, Azizkha received fatal injuries and succumbed on the very
same day.
3.1 Therefore, the original claimants filed claim petition, under
Section 166 of the MV Act, claiming that the deceased was
earning Rs.2,000/- and Rs.30/- towards daily allowance by
driving the truck and he was aged 30 years and was hale and
hearty. The original claimants claimed that the deceased Azizkha
was the sole breadwinner for the family and thereby, claimed
total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- along with 18% interest per
annum and costs.
3.2 Before the tribunal, on service of notice original Opponent
No.2 neither appeared through the learned advocate nor did he
file any written-statement, whereas, original Opponent Nos. 3 to
5 appeared through their learned advocates. The tribunal, after
examining the material on record, hold that the driver of the
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:53 IST 2026

C/FA/2000/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240431032016)
tanker, bearing registration No. RJ-20-G-0078, i.e. the deceased
Azizkha, was solely negligent for the road accident. Then the
tribunal took monthly income of the deceased Azizkha at
Rs.1500/- and after adding 50% towards future prospect and
after deducting 1/4 amount towards personal / pocket expenses
and by applying the multiplier of 16, awarded total
compensation of Rs.3,79,000/-, which also included the
amounts under the conventional heads, as provided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others’ , reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, the tribunal directed original
Opponent Nos. 4 and 5 to indemnify the claim and exonerated
original Opponent Nos. 1 to 3.
3.3 Hence, the original Opponent No.5 and the original
claimants have filed the appeal as well as the cross-objections,
respectively.
4. Heard, learned advocate, Ms. Nanavaty, appearing for
original Opponent No.5, learned advocate, Mr. Modi, for the
original claimants and learned advocate, Ms. Rahevar, for
original Opponent No.3.
5. The issue that when the insurance company has charged
and received premium to cover the paid driver, it has to satisfy
the claim, is no more res integra, in view of the judgment of this
Court in ‘ Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd./o. Late
Laxmanbhai Ramsangbhai Thakore (Koli ) Vs. Kandla Dock
Labour Board & Another’ , reported in 2021 ACJ 2262,. Thus,
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:53 IST 2026

C/FA/2000/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240431032016)
the submission made by learned advocate, Ms. Nanavaty, in the
appeal with regard to liability of original Opponent No.5 to
indemnify the claim cannot be sustained and the same is
rejected.
5.1 Second contention raised by learned advocate, Ms.
Nanavaty, is that it is a case of head-on collision and therefore,
when the driver of the offending truck did not enter the witness-
box and when no other eye-witness was examined, the tribunal
ought to have attributed, at least, 50% negligence on the part of
the driver of the truck, i.e. original Opponent No.1. Thereby, it
was submitted that the tribunal has committed a grave error by
holding the deceased Azizkha solely responsible for the alleged
road accident.
5.1.1 In connection with the aforesaid submission made by
learned advocate, Ms. Nanavaty, it would be relevant to refer to
the observations made by the tribunal in Paragraph-8 of the
impugned judgment and award. The tribunal has noted that the
FIR of the alleged accident was given by one Chhotusingh
Narayansingh Rajput, who was driving truck bearing registration
No. RJ-22-G-0111. Tribunal found that Chhotusingh was
familiar with the deceased Azizkha. Further, tribunal also
observed that original Opponent Nos. 4 and 5 failed to produce
oral evidence of the said witness and therefore, tribunal rightly
did not believe the contents of the FIR given by said
Chhotusingh. The tribunal has also recorded, on perusal of the
panchnama of the place of incident, that the road at the place,
where the accident took place, lies North to South and it has
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:53 IST 2026

C/FA/2000/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240431032016)
four feet empty land on both the sides. The tribunal also found
that the truck bearing registration No. RJ-23-G-117 was lying in
damaged condition on the west side, whereas, the tanker being
driven by the deceased Azizkha, bearing registration No. RJ-20-
G-0078, was lying in the middle of the road and there was
sufficient space for a vehicle to pass through from the east side
of the said tanker. On the basis of that, the tribunal came to the
conclusion that the deceased Azizkha was driving his tanker in
the middle of the road in negligent manner and with excessive
speed, which resulted into the accident in question.
5.1.2 This Court also finds that no witness entered into the
witness-box to unfurl the real facts of the accident, though, it is
a case of head-on collision between the tanker of the deceased
Azizkha and the truck. Moreover, the FIR of the alleged accident
and all other police investigation paper also indicate that
‘Abated’ summary was filed against the deceased Azizkha. In the
above background, on the basis of the best evidence available,
the tribunal decided the issue of negligence and held the
deceased Azizkha solely negligent for the road accident. In view
of the above discussion, I see no reason to disturb the finding
recorded by the tribunal on the issue of negligence and the same
is confirmed. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Insofar as the cross-objections filed by the original
claimant is concerned, it appears that the tribunal erred in
calculating compensation under all the heads. From the record it
emerges that no documentary evidence was produced before the
tribunal, with regard to income of the deceased Azizkha.
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:53 IST 2026

C/FA/2000/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240431032016)
However, the fact remains that the deceased Azizkha was driver
of the Heavy Goods Vehicle (‘HGV’, in brief). The alleged accident
took place in the year 1994 and at that time, the minimum daily-
wages for a skilled worker were Rs.1500/- per month. Since, the
deceased Azizkha was driver of HGV, his driving skill cannot be
treated at part with that of labourer and therefore, the monthly
income of the deceased Azizkha is assessed at Rs.2,000/- per
month. Further, considering the fact that the deceased was aged
about 34 years, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of ‘ Pranay Sethi & Others’ (Supra), 40% amount is
required to be added towards future prospects or loss of future
income.
6.1 Insofar as the amounts awarded under the conventional
heads is concerned, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of ‘ United India Insurance Co. Ltd., versus
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur’, reported in (2021) 11 SCC
780, each of the dependents shall be entitled for compensation
under the head of loss of consortium.
6.2 The Apex Court in Paragraph-61(iiiv) in the case of ‘ Pranay
Sethi & Others’ (Supra) has observed thus;
“ 61 ...
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.
15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years. ”
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:53 IST 2026

C/FA/2000/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240431032016)
6.2.1 Further, the Apex Court also directed to enhance the
compensation by 10% after every three years. Nearly nine years
have passed, since, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
‘ Pranay Sethi & Others’ (Supra) and therefore, the
compensation under the aforesaid heads is also required to be
enhanced.
6.3 Resultantly, the recalculated amount of compensation
shall be as under;
Monthly Income: Rs.2000/-
Prospective Rise (40%): Rs.800/-
Gross Monthly Income Rs.2800/-
1/4 Deduction Towards Personal Expenses: - Rs.700/-
Net Monthly Income: Rs.2100/-
Annual Income: X 12 Months
Rs.25,200/-
Multiplier: X 16
Total Loss of Dependency: Rs.4,03,200 /-
Loss of Consortium
(Rs.53,240/- each claimant): Rs.53,240/- X 6 = Rs.2,66,200/-
Funeral Expenses: Rs.19,965/-
Loss of Estate: Rs.19,965/-
Medical & Transport Expenses: Rs.5,000/-
Total Compensation: Rs.7,14,330/-
Amount Awarded by Tribunal: - Rs. 3,79,000/-
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:53 IST 2026

C/FA/2000/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240431032016)
Enhanced Amount of Compensation: Rs.3,35,330/-
6.4 The tribunal has awarded 9% interest per annum, which is
just and proper and therefore, the same is maintained.
7. In the result, the first appeal filed by original Opponent
No.5 stands dismissed and the interim relief granted in the
appeal stands vacated , whereas, the cross-objections filed by
the original claimants are partly allowed and they shall be
entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.3,35,330/-
along with 9% interest from the date of the filing of the claim
petition till realisation, except, for 3176 days delay in filing the
same from original Opponent Nos. 4 and 5, jointly or severally.
The judgment and award dated 04.11.2015, passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Banaskantha at
Deesa, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 381 of 2009 (Old
MACP No. 1352 of 1994) is modified to the aforesaid extent.
Original Opponent No. 5 shall deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned tribunal within the period of
eight weeks , from today. On deposit of the amount, the tribunal
shall disburse the entire amount of compensation in favour of
the original claimants, after due verification, through NEFT /
RTGS, if required, by passing fresh orders for disbursement.
R&P, if any, be sent back to the concerned tribunal. Direct
service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 20 02:00:53 IST 2026