MADHURABEN WD/O ANANDBHAI ARVINDBHAI SOVANI vs PRAVINBHAI PREMJIBHAI VAGHELA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2494/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240218092018)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2494 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1928 of 2018
==========================================================
MADHURABEN WD/O ANANDBHAI ARVINDBHAI SOVANI & ANR.
Versus
PRAVINBHAI PREMJIBHAI VAGHELA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,4,5
NOTICE UNSERVED 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 20.08.2008, between a truck and
a car which resulted in the death of the driver of the car. This
resulted in the claim petition being filed by his legal heirs.
2. The occurrence of this accident and the liability of the
insurer of the truck to pay the compensation is not in dispute.
3. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence, came to
the conclusion that the driver of the truck as well as the driver of
the car were both responsible for the accident in the ratio of
75:25. The Tribunal thereafter assessed the monthly income of
the driver of the car who was killed in the accident at Rs.
29,940/- per month, by taking the average of the preceding three
years of income tax returns.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2494/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240218092018)
4. Being aggrieved by this award, both the insurer of the
truck as well as the claimants are in appeal.
5. The insurer of the truck contends that, since the car hit
the truck from behind, the negligence of the driver was 100%
and the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that he was
negligent only to the extent of 25%.
6. The insurer does not really question the quantum that is
awarded.
7. The claimants, on the other hand, contended that the
chargesheet was laid against the driver of the truck and he was
also not examined to establish that the driver of the truck had
been negligent or was the real cause of the accident. It is,
therefore, contended that the attribution of 25% negligence on
the driver of the car was unwarranted. It is also contended that
the Tribunal fell in error in taking the average of the preceding
three year income tax returns, and it ought to have taken into
consideration only the last drawn pay of the deceased who was
an employee of the Kotak Mahindra Bank. Reliance is placed on
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rashmirekha
Tripathy and Another Vs. Branch Manager, Sriram General
Insurance Company Limited and Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC
1256 .
8. As far as negligence is concerned, admittedly, the accident
occurred when the truck was stationary on the road and the car
rammed it from behind. After investigation, the Police had laid a
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2494/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240218092018)
chargesheet against the driver of the truck, ostensibly on the
ground that the truck ought not have been parked on the road.
In order to establish that there was no negligence on the part of
the driver of the truck, the driver of the truck is also not
examined.
9. In our view, in the light of judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental
Insurance Company 2018(5) SCC 656, having regard to the
fact that the chargesheet was laid against the driver of the truck,
and he was also not examined, it will have to be held that he
alone was responsible for the accident. Consequently, the finding
of the Tribunal that the driver of the car was negligence to the
extent of 25% is set aside, and it is held that the driver of the
truck alone was responsible for the accident.
10. As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has
considered the average income of the deceased for the preceding
three years, as indicated in the income tax returns. Admittedly,
the deceased was an employee of the bank drawing the salary. It
is the settled law that in respect of a salaried employee, the
actual salary that he was drawing as on the date of the accident
will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of
computing compensation. In the instant case, the evidence on
the record indicates that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.
36,403/- per month. Consequently, it is this income which will
have to be taken as the yardstick for computation of the
compensation.
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2494/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240218092018)
11. As the deceased was aged 32 years and was in a
permanent employment, 50% 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 two dependents, one third will
have to be deducted towards his personal expenses, and a
multiplier of 16 will have to be applied. Consequently, towards
loss of dependency, the claimants would be entitled to
Rs.69,89,376/-.
12. 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, the claimants collectively be
entitled to Rs. 1,04,000/- (52,000 x 2) for loss of consortium and
further sum of Rs. 19,500/- each for loss of estate and funeral
expenses.
13. Hence, in substitution of the sums awarded by the
Tribunal, the claimants would be entitled to the following sums:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of dependency 69,89,376/-
Loss of estate 19,500/-
Loss of consortium 1,04,000/-
Funeral expenses 19,500/-
Total 71,32,376/-
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026
C/FA/2494/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240218092018)
Compensation awarded by
43,45,110
the Tribunal
Enhanced Amount 27,87,266/-
14. The appeal preferred by the claimants is partly allowed.
The claimants are entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.
27,87,266/- with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition
filed by the claimants before the Tribunal till its realisation. The
enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondent No.3 –
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., within a period of EIGHT
WEEKS from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
15. The enhanced amount which shall be deposited pursuant
to this order shall be disbursed to the claimants upon proper
verification by NEFT / RTGS.
16. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by the Insurance
Company stands dismissed.
17. 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 5 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:40 IST 2026