DAIZY (NEHABEN) WD/O BHARATBHUSAN BALULAL PUROHIT vs YUNUSBHAI MOHAMMAD HUSAIN JAMADAR SAIKH

Court
Gujarat High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 60 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1547 of 2016
==========================================================
DAIZY (NEHABEN) WD/O BHARATBHUSAN BALULAL PUROHIT &
ORS.
Versus
YUNUSBHAI MOHAMMAD HUSAIN JAMADAR SAIKH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT C NANAVATI for MR UM SHASTRI(830) for Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR C S SHUKLA(7549) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 29/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The occurrence of an accident on 18.1.1998 between
a bus and a jeep is not in dispute. As a result of this
accident, the occupant of the jeep, who also owned the
jeep, was killed. This led to the filing of a claim petition
by his legal heirs and the Tribunal, on consideration of
the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus
and the driver of the jeep in the ratio of 90:10.
2. The Tribunal, thereafter, assessed the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and in all, awarded
a sum of rupees Rs.16,06,500/-.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 11:48:09 IST 2026

3. Being aggrieved by the said award, both the owner
of the bus, i.e. GSRTC. as well as the legal heirs of the
owner of the jeep who was killed in the accident, are in
appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the corporation
contends that the attribution of negligence only to the
extent of 10% on the driver of the jeep was wholly
incorrect. He seeks to argue that the accident occurred
on a road, which was about 20 feet wide, and the
evidence on record indicates that it was an head-on
collision and, therefore, the apportionment of negligence
was wholly incorrect.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants
contends that the evidence on record actually indicates
that the driver of the bus had brought the bus onto the
wrong side and this had resulted in an head-on collision
and it was, therefore, clear that the driver of the bus
alone was responsible for the accident. He also points out
that a charge-sheet had been laid against only the driver
of the bus and, therefore, the apportionment of 10%
negligence on the driver of the jeep was improper.
6. As far as negligence is concerned, admittedly, the
charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the bus. This
would prima facie indicate that he was responsible for the
accident. The driver was also examined before the
Tribunal.
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 11:48:09 IST 2026

7. We have gone through the deposition of the driver
and we find that the driver has not made any allegation
that the driver of the jeep had driven his jeep in a rash
and negligent manner and it contributed to the accident.
In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that
the charge sheet had been laid against only the driver of
the bus, we hold that the driver of the bus alone was
responsible for the accident.
8. As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/-.
9. Learned counsel for the claimant points out that an
auditor/ accountant was examined and the profit and loss
accounts of the three companies owned by the deceased
were also placed on record. He points out that the
accountant had categorically stated that the net profit of
all the three companies was Rs.2.43 lakhs, Rs.1.46 lakhs,
and Rs.22,000/-, i.e. roughly about Rs.3.8 lakhs. He,
therefore, submits that having regard to the fact that the
deceased had a net profit of Rs.3.8 lakhs, the assessment
of income at Rs.10,000/- per month would be incorrect.
10. We find from the records that the profit and loss
account of all the three companies were produced and
this indicates that he had also engaged certain
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 11:48:09 IST 2026

employees, to which he himself was paying about
Rs.6,000/- a month. Having regard to the fact that the
deceased’s companies were earning a profit of Rs.3.8
lakhs, in our view, it would be appropriate to hold that he
was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month.
11. As the deceased was aged 43 years, future prospects
of 25% will have to be added and out of this, 1/4th would
be be deducted towards his personal expenditure.
Consequently, for the purpose of computing
compensation, his monthly income is taken as
Rs.25,000/-. As the deceased was 43 years old, a
multiplier of 14 will have to be applied and consequently,
the claimants will be entitled for a sum of Rs.39,37,584/-
towards loss of dependency. The claimants would also be
entitled to a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- towards loss of
consortium.
12. As a consequence, as per 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 the
following sums :
Income Rs.25,000/-
Prospective Income (25%) Rs.6,250/-
Total Rs.31,250/-
Personal Expenses (1/4) - Rs.7812/-
Annual (x 12) Rs.2,80,256/-
Multiplier X 14
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 11:48:09 IST 2026

Future loss of income Rs.39,37,584/-
Loss of Consortium
(52,000 x 4)
Rs.2,08,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.19,500/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.19,500/-
Grand Total Rs.41,84,584/-
Tribunal awarded Amount Rs.16,06,500/-
Enhanced Compensation Rs.25,78,084/-
13. The appeal filed by the claimants is hereby PARTLY
ALLOWED . The claimants are entitled to an additional
sum of Rs.25,78,084/- 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 GSRTC within a period of TEN weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
14. The enhanced amount which shall be deposited
pursuant to this order shall be disbursed to the claimants
upon proper verification by NEFT / RTGS.
15. R & P if called for, be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith.
16. The appeal of the corporation is DISMISSED.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 11:48:09 IST 2026