NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs TRILOKSING RUPSING CHAUHAN
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1365/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240666212019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1365 of 2020
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 62 of 2021
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1365 of 2020
==============================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
TRILOKSING RUPSING CHAUHAN & ORS.
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS JK HINGORANI(2491) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6,7,8
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 12/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The occurrence of an accident on 27.05.2016 between a
motorcycle and the truck is not in dispute.
2. As a result of the said accident, the driver of the motorcycle
was killed and consequentially, his wife, daughter and parents
has preferred a claim petition.
3. The Tribunal held the truck driver negligent, deducted
income tax of Rs. 4,275/- from the deceased’s monthly income,
calculated the net monthly income at Rs. 47,725/-, and awarded
total compensation of Rs. 1,04,98,672/-.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:14:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1365/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240666212019)
4. Being aggrieved by the said award, both the insurer as well
as the claimants are in appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in treating original
claimant No. 3 i.e., the father of the deceased as a dependent
despite evidence showing that he was gainfully employed.
Consequently, as there were only three eligible dependents,
namely, the wife, minor child, and mother of the deceased, the
deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been one-
third instead of one-fourth. It is further submitted that the
computation of the actual salary requires appropriate deductions
towards income tax and professional tax.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the original
claimants/respondents contends that the Tribunal correctly
evaluated the pay scale under the 7th Pay Commission and that
the compensation awarded is just, fair, and reasonable.
7. As far as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal rightly held
that the driver of the truck was 100% negligent, as the charge-
sheet was filed against him. In light of Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 , filing of a charge-sheet
against the driver of the offending vehicle is prima facie proof of
negligence. Thus, the finding on sole negligence of the truck
driver warrants no interference.
8. As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the
deceased was aged 32 years and was serving as Assistant
Engineer (Class II Officer) in R&B Sub-Division, Keshod. His
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:14:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1365/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240666212019)
gross monthly income is assessed as Rs. 54,280. However, after
deducting professional tax and income tax, the net monthly
income comes to Rs. 48,661/-. In our view, it would be
appropriate to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.
48,661/- per month.
9. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs.
Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, has categorically
held that, if the deceased was having a permanent job, he would
be entitled to future prospects and having regard to the fact that
the deceased was aged 32 years, in accordance with the
judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the income would
have to be supplemented by 50% future prospects. Accordingly,
after adding 50% towards future prospects, the monthly
prospective income of the deceased comes to Rs. 72,991/- (Rs.
48,661/- + Rs. 24,330/-).
10. Since respondent No. 3 i.e., that father of the deceased is
gainfully employed, there were only three dependents left
namely, the wife, minor child, and mother of the deceased.
Accordingly, after deducting one-third towards personal
expenses amounting to Rs. 24,330/- per month, the monthly
dependency comes to Rs. 48,661/- after rounding off. The
annual dependency, therefore, comes to Rs. 5,83,932/-.
11. Since, the deceased was aged 32 years, a multiplier of 17
would be applicable. Consequently, the claimants will be entitled
for a sum of Rs. 99,26,844/- (Rs. 5,83,932 x 17) towards loss of
future income.
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:14:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1365/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240666212019)
12. In accordance with the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra)
read with the dictum of Apex Court in Reena Vs. Managing
Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, reported at
2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 77486, the claimants would also be entitled
for loss of consortium of Rs. 52,000/- and for filial consortium
Rs. 1,56,000/- (52,000/- x 3). Further, the claimants would be
entitled to sum of Rs. 19,500/- each towards loss of estate and
funeral expenses.
13. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Insurance
Company is partly allowed, and the total compensation awarded
to the original claimants is modified as under:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 99,26,844/-
Loss of estate 19,500/-
Loss of consortium 52,000/-
Filial consortium 1,56,000/-
Funeral expenses 19,500/-
Total 1,01,73,844/-
14. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,04,98,672/-, whereas the
modified compensation is Rs. 1,01,73,844/-, resulting in a net
reduction of Rs. 3,24,828/- .
15. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the modified compensation sum of Rs. 1,01,73,844/- along with
9% interest within a period of EIGHT WEEKS from the date of
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:14:39 IST 2026
C/FA/1365/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2026
(GJHC240666212019)
receipt of copy of this judgment, after adjusting amounts already
deposited. Any excess amount deposited by the Insurance
Company shall be refunded to it forthwith.
16. In view of the order passed above, the cross-objection
stands dismissed.
17. The amount deposited pursuant to this order shall be
disbursed to the original claimants in terms of the Tribunal's
apportionment directions upon proper verification through
NEFT/RTGS.
18. The Record & Proceedings (R&P), if received, shall 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 Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 21:14:39 IST 2026