MADHUBEN HASMUKHLAL DAVE vs MANISHBHAI DEVRAJBHAI KAROTARA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/6029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240430522019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6029 of 2019
==========================================================
MADHUBEN HASMUKHLAL DAVE & ORS.
Versus
MANISHBHAI DEVRAJBHAI KAROTARA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DEEPAK G ALORIA(6580) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 02/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The occurrence of an accident between a motorcycle
and a bus is not in dispute. As a result of this accident,
the rider of the motorcycle, a 52 year old, who came to be
working as a watchman was killed.
2. The Tribunal assessed the evidence and has come to
the conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle had also
contributed to the accident to the extent of 40%. It has
thereafter, proceeded to award sums, totaling to
Rs.5,06,667/-, and for arriving at this sum, it has taken
the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-.
3. Being aggrieved by this award, the claimants are in
appeal.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:44 IST 2026
C/FA/6029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240430522019)
4. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously
contended that the finding of negligence to the extent of
40% on the deceased was wholly improper in the light of
the fact that the charge-sheet had been laid against the
driver of the bus. He also submits that the sums awarded
are inadequate inasmuch as the sums towards consortium
are not in accordance with Pranay Sethi's case.
5. Learned counsel for the corporation on the other
hand submits that the Tribunal was correct in coming to
the conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle also
contributed to the extent of 40%. He submits that the
road was admittedly under repairs and there was
evidence on record to indicate that the rider of the
motorcycle had tried to overtake a truck and in that
process, collided with the bus which resulted in the
fatality.
6. As far as negligence is concerned, admittedly the
charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the bus.
The driver of the bus has been examined and during the
course of his evidence, he has deposed that the rider of
the motorcycle was overtaking a truck and at that point in
time, he collided with the bus and thereafter went under
the wheels of the truck.
7. It must be stated here that no evidence is produced
regarding the involvement of the truck. In cases relating
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:44 IST 2026
C/FA/6029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240430522019)
to the drivers of the State Road Transport Corporation,
the normal procedure would be that an inquiry will be
conducted against the driver of the bus, especially when
it was involved in an accident resulting in a fatality.
8. In the instant case, the inquiry report has not been
produced on record by the Corporation. If the
Corporation's records indicated the negligence of the
driver of the bus, the same would have been a relevant
piece of evidence. Even if the driver of the bus had been
exonerated, that would also be a piece of evidence in
favour of the Corporation. Since the inquiry report has
not been placed on record, an adverse inference would
have to be drawn against the Corporation, more so in the
light of the charge-sheet, that had been laid against its
driver.
9. We, therefore, hold that the attribution of 40%
negligence on the rider of the motorcycle to be wholly
improper, and we hold that the driver of the bus alone
was responsible for the accident.
10. The Tribunal was justified in coming to the
conclusion that the deceased was earning only a sum of
Rs.8,000/- in the light of the evidence that was adduced
before it. The Tribunal, in fact, has assessed the monthly
income at Rs.6,100/- towards his salary that the deceased
was earning as a watchman and has also added the
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:44 IST 2026
C/FA/6029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240430522019)
agriculture income of Rs.1,900/- per month. This
assessment is just and proper and is, therefore, affirmed.
11. As the deceased was aged 52 years, 10% future
prospects will be added, and out of this, one-third will be
deducted, and a multiplier of 11 will have to be applied.
Consequently, towards loss of dependency, the claimants
will be entitled to a Rs.7,74,444/-. 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.8,000/
Prospective income (10%) Rs.800/-
Total Rs.8,800/-
Deduction (1/3rd ) - Rs.2,933/-
Total Rs.5,867/-
Annual (Rs.5857 x 12) Rs.70,404/-
Multiplier X 11
Total Rs.7,74,444/-
Loss of Consortium
(52,000 x 3)
Rs.1,56,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.19,500/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.19,500/-
Grand Total Rs.9,69,444/-
Tribunal awarded Amount Rs.5,06,667/-
Enhanced Compensation Rs.4,62,777/-
12. The appeal is hereby PARTLY ALLOWED . The
claimants are entitled to an additional sum of
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:44 IST 2026
C/FA/6029/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240430522019)
Rs.4,62,777/- 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.
13. The enhanced amount which shall be deposited
pursuant to this order shall be disbursed to the claimants
upon proper verification by NEFT / RTGS.
14. R & P if called for, be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 03 18:37:44 IST 2026