GONDAL TALUKA PANCHAYAT THROUGH TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER vs LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. LAKHDHIRSINH JORAVARSINH ALIAS JORUBHA VAGHELA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/4668/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240409072018)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4668 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2018
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4668 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3744 of 2018
==============================================================
GONDAL TALUKA PANCHAYAT THROUGH TALUKA DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. LAKHDHIRSINH JORAVARSINH ALIAS
JORUBHA VAGHELA & ORS.
==============================================================
Appearance:
HARSHIT M KARATHIA(7916) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR POPATJI H SOLANKI(5213) for the Defendant(s) No.
3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6
MR. DIVYAM Y. DESAI, for MR.HARDIK BHARHMBHAT(3741) for the
Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 28/10/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. An accident occurred on 19.07.2007, between a motorcycle
and a jeep which was registered in the name of the Taluka
Development Officer, Gondal, District Rajkot.
2. As a result of this accident, the rider, Dilipbhai Ratnabhai
Dabhi and the pillion rider, Lakhdhirsinh Joravarsinh, were
killed which resulted in the claim petitions being filed by their
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/4668/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240409072018)
respective legal heirs.
3. The Panchayat entered appearance and contended that
they had sold the jeep in question on 19.03.2007 in a public
auction to Bharatbhai Jivabhai Sarvaiya for a sum of Rs.
29,500/- and he had also taken possession of the same on
21.03.2007. It was further contended that as per the terms and
conditions of the auction, the purchaser was required to
undertake the formalities of transfer of ownership incurring his
own expenditure. It was, therefore, contended that as on the date
of the accident, the Panchayat was not the owner of the offending
vehicle.
4. The purchaser of jeep, namely, Bharatbhai Jivabhai
Sarvaiya, appeared and contested the matter, He contended that
the Taluka Panchayat, which was the registered owner had not
given him a no-dues certificate for transferring the vehicle in his
favour and therefore, he could not transfer the vehicle in his
name. He further contended that he was not the registered
owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and, therefore,
was not liable to pay the compensation.
5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence and the
pleadings, came to the conclusion that the Panchayat, being the
registered owner of the vehicle, was liable for the payment of the
compensation. The Tribunal, as far as quantum was concerned,
determined the monthly income of the deceased pillion rider at
Rs. 19,933/- and that of the deceased rider at Rs. 14,671/- and
by making the appropriate deductions and applying the
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/4668/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240409072018)
appropriate multiplier, arrived at a sum of Rs. 31,29,600/- in
the case of pillion rider and at a sum of Rs. 20,84,000/- in the
case of rider of the motorcycle.
6. Being aggrieved by this awards, the Panchayat, being the
registered owner of the jeep, has preferred these appeals.
7. It is contended by the Panchayat that the vehicle was sold
in a public auction and the terms of the sale clearly indicated
that the transfer was to be made by the purchaser at his own
cost. It is, therefore, contended that the liability to pay the
compensation would rests solely on the purchaser in the public
auction and not on the Panchayat, even though it is the
registered owner of the vehicle.
8. The auction purchaser, though served, has chosen to
remain absent before these appeals.
9. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that there
is a clear admission by the official of the Panchayat to the effect
that they have not intimated the transfer to the RTO, as required
under the rules, and in the light of this statement, in law, it is
only the registered owner, that is the Panchayat, who would be
liable to pay the compensation. It is also argued that though an
appeal is not preferred by the claimants, the award suffer from a
glaring illegality in so far as it relates to quantum.
10. It is submitted that, in the case of the pillion rider, the
deceased was working as a Senior Assistant in PGVCL, whereas,
in the case of the rider, the deceased was working as a Helper in
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/4668/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240409072018)
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited. It is further submitted
that, shortly before their respective deaths, the pay scales had
been revised and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have
considered the revised pay scales instead of the salaries actually
drawn by the deceased's.
11. It is also contended that the awards towards consortium
are not in consonance with Pranay Sethi’s case, and therefore
the awards would have to be re-computed.
12. As far as the liability is concerned, it is settled law that the
registered owner of a motor vehicle would be liable to pay the
compensation. In this case, though the Panchayat contends that
it had sold the vehicle, it has admittedly not discharged its
obligation of informing the RTO about the transfer. So long as
this obligation remains unfulfilled, obviously Panchayat being
the registered owner would remain liable to pay the
compensation.
13. The finding of the Tribunal holding that the Panchayat is
liable to pay the compensation cannot be found fault with, and
therefore the appeals of the Panchayat is liable to be dismissed .
14. Though the appeals of the Panchayat are dismissed and
the claimants have not preferred any appeals, nevertheless, it is
the obligation of this Court to ensure that just compensation is
paid to the claimants.
15. In this case, before the Tribunal, it was specifically
contended that the Sixth Pay Commission was implemented in
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/4668/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240409072018)
respect of the employees of PGVCL, and this pay scale revision
was made with retrospective effect and as a consequence, the
claimant's pay scale would have to be Rs. 21,331/- i.e., the
revised pay scale. The Tribunal has however taken into
consideration the pay scale that was prevailing as on the date of
death and has not taken into consideration the revised pay scale.
Consequently, we hold that the deceased-pillion rider was
drawing a monthly income of Rs. 21,331/-.
16. As the deceased was a Government servant, aged 50 years,
30% future prospects will have to be added as per the judgment
rendered by Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . As he
had five dependents, one-forth will have to be deducted towards
his personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13 will have to be
applied. Consequently, towards loss of dependency, the
claimants would be entitled to Rs.32,44,332/-.
17. In accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi’s case read with the dictum of Apex Court
in Reena Vs. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation, reported at 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC
77486 , and in view of the facts of this case, claimants would
collectively be entitled to Rs. 2,60,000/- (52,000 x 5) for loss of
consortium and further sum of Rs. 19,500/- each for loss of
estate and funeral expenses. In substitution of the sums
awarded by the Tribunal the claimants of the deceased pillion
rider would be entitled to the following sums:
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/4668/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240409072018)
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 32,44,332/-
Loss of consortium 2,60,000/-
Loss of estate 19,500/-
Funeral expenses 19,500/-
Medical expenses 28,000/-
Total 35,71,332/-
Compensation awarded by
31,29,600
the Tribunal
Enhanced Amount 4,41,732/-
18. Similarly, in respect of the rider, the Tribunal has taken
into consideration the income that the rider was drawing as on
the date of the accident and has not considered the revised pay
scale. The Tribunal has taken into fact that the revised pay scale
would be a sum of Rs. 16,352/- as against the pre-revised pay
scale of Rs. 14,671/-. It is obvious therefore, that the revised pay
scale will have to be applied and consequently, we hold that the
deceased rider was drawing a monthly income of Rs. 16,352/-.
19. As the deceased was a Government servant, aged 52 years,
30% future prospects will have to be added as per the judgment
rendered by Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . As he
had six dependents, one-fourth will have to be deducted towards
his personal expenses, and a multiplier of 13 will have to be
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/4668/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240409072018)
applied. Consequently, towards loss of dependency, the
claimants would be entitled to Rs. 24,87,108/-.
20. In accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi’s case read with the dictum of Apex Court
in Reena Vs. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation, reported at 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC
77486 , and in view of the facts of this case, claimants would
collectively be entitled to Rs. 3,12,000/- (52,000 x 6) for loss of
consortium and further sum of Rs. 19,500/- each for loss of
estate and funeral expenses. In substitution of the sums
awarded by the Tribunal the claimants of the deceased pillion
rider would be entitled to the following sums:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 24,87,108/-
Loss of consortium 3,12,000/-
Loss of estate 19,500/-
Funeral expenses 19,500/-
Total 28,38,108/-
Compensation awarded by
20,84,000
the Tribunal
Enhanced Amount 7,54,108/-
21. The Panchayat shall be liable to pay the enhanced
compensation (Rs. 4,41,732/- in First Appeal No. 4668 of 2018
and Rs. 7,54,108/- in First Appeal No. 3744 of 2018) along with
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/4668/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240409072018)
9% interest from the date of the claim petition filed by the
claimants before the Tribunal till its realisation. EIGHT WEEKS
time is granted to the Panchayat to deposit the enhanced
amount of compensation from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
22. The enhanced amount which shall be deposited pursuant
to this order shall be disbursed to the claimants upon proper
verification by NEFT / RTGS.
23. It is needless to state that it will be open for the Panchayat
to initiate proceedings against the auction purchaser if it is of
the view that they are not liable and the auction purchaser was
liable to pay the said compensation.
24. In view of the disposal of the main matter, civil application,
if any, does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
25. R & P, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
YASH ARORA
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026