NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH LEGAL CELL vs PAVAN ROAD LINE
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2145/2010 (GJHC240440192010) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2145 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 915 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH LEGAL CELL
Versus
PAVAN ROAD LINE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAYUR RAJGURU(1198) for the Defendant(s) No. 5.1,5.2,5.3
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 25/08/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Both the captioned appeals have been preferred against the
impugned judgment and award dated 06.10.2009 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-II) & Addl. District Judge,
at Mahesana in M.A.C.P. No. 333 of 2006, whereby the learned Tribunal
had partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.7,81,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from
the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as
compensation.
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:39:04 IST 2026
C/FA/2145/2010 (GJHC240440192010) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to by their
rank before the learned Tribunal.
3. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned
appeals, as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
i. On 22.02.2006, Mr. Chaudhari Madhabhai Bhagvanbhai
(hereinafter referred to as the “ deceased ”), who was the
driver of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-2V-4885
had parked his truck on the side of the road and was
talking to the driver of truck bearing registration No.GJ-
17-X-8855. Both the deceased and the other driver were
having a conversation by standing in between the two
trucks parked on the side of the road. In the meantime,
original opponent No.1 came by driving another truck
bearing registration No.GJ-12-X-2063 in a rash and
negligent manner and at an excessive speed, and dashed
with the rear side of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-
12-X-8855, thereby causing the vehicular accident. As a
result of the said vehicular accident, the deceased got
crushed between the two trucks and he succumbed to the
said injuries.
It is the case of the original claimants before the learned
ii.
Tribunal that at the time of the vehicular accident, the
deceased was working as a driver and he was the
registered owner of one truck. He was engaged in the
business of transportation and was also engaged in
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:39:04 IST 2026
C/FA/2145/2010 (GJHC240440192010) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
agricultural activities, thereby earning a substantial
income. Therefore, Claim Petition was preferred before
the learned Tribunal seeking compensation on account of
the death of the deceased.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the
Claim Petition, opponent No.3 & 5 – Insurance Companies
filed their respective Written Statements, thereby denying
the averments made in the Claim Petition, and in brief,
prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record and
iv.
the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the
respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed
the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.7,81,000/-,
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from
the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as
compensation.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, both the original claimants and
original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company has
challenged the impugned judgment and award on the
ground of quantum.
4. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company vehemently submitted
that the learned Tribunal had committed the manifest error in
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:39:04 IST 2026
C/FA/2145/2010 (GJHC240440192010) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
calculating the compensation under the head of Future loss of
dependency. He argued that the deceased was survived by three legal
representatives, as such, in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 ,
1/3rd of the monthly expenses is required to be deducted on account of
the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, he prayed for
modification of the impugned judgment and award.
5. Mr. Mayur Rajguru, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
original claimants vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased at a very lower side. He argued
that at the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a driver
and was also the registered owner of a truck. He was engaged in
transportation business and was also engaged in agricultural activities
and used to supply milk to Rangkui Milk Produce Cooperative Society.
He further submitted that the revenue records of the agricultural land
as well as the certificate evidencing the supply of milk to the
Cooperative Society was proved on record, however, the learned
Tribunal, ignoring the material on record, had assessed the income of
the deceased at very lower side. He argued that considering the year of
the accident and having regard to all the sources of income, the learned
Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- per month. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal
had awarded meagre amounts of compensation under the conventional
heads. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the original
claimants has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram and Ors., reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 . Having placed the
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:39:04 IST 2026
C/FA/2145/2010 (GJHC240440192010) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, he prayed for enhancement of
the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
6. Mr. Tanmay B Karia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
original opponent No.5 – Insurance Company vehemently submitted
that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award and
contended that the captioned appeals are devoid of any merits and the
same are liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it
is to be noted that both the original claimants and original opponent
No.3 – Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment and
award on the ground of quantum.
QUANTUM
8. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a
driver. Apart from the driving work, the deceased also owned a truck.
Further, the revenue records proved at Exhs.27 to 28 would show that
the deceased was also the co-owner of an agricultural land. The
document from the Milk Cooperative Society proved at Exh.40 would
reveal that the deceased also used to supply milk. However, the learned
Tribunal, after considering all the evidence on record had assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is settled
proposition of law that income from all sources are required to
considered for assessing the compensation under the head of Future
loss of dependency. In the instant case, the vehicular accident in
question took place in the year 2006. Thus, considering the year of
accident and having regard to the income from all sources, the income
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:39:04 IST 2026
C/FA/2145/2010 (GJHC240440192010) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
of the deceased at the time of the vehicular accident is reassessed at
Rs.7,500/- per month.
9. It is not in dispute that at the time of the vehicular accident, the
deceased was aged about 42 years, therefore, in view of the ratio of
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), the income of the deceased is required to be
enhanced by 25% on account of the future prospects of the deceased.
Therefore, after adding 25% of the notional income to the income of
the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased would come to
Rs.9,375/- (i.e, Rs.7,500/- plus 25% of Rs.7,500/-).
10. It is on record that at the time of the vehicular accident, the
deceased was survived by three legal representatives, therefore, in view
of the ratio of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of the notional income is required
to be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased.
However, it appears from the records that the learned Tribunal had not
deducted 1/3rd of the notional income on account of the personal
expenses of the deceased. Thus, after deducting 1/3rd of the income
on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the income for
calculating the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,250/-
(i.e., Rs.9,375/- minus 1/3rd of Rs.9,375/-).
11. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of the vehicular
accident, the multiplier of “14” is required to be applied. Therefore,
after applying the multiplier of “14”, the original claimants shall be
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:39:04 IST 2026
C/FA/2145/2010 (GJHC240440192010) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
entitled for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- (i.e, Rs.6,250/- X 12 months X
multiplier of “14”) under the head of Future Loss of Dependency.
12. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of
compensation under the head of Loss of consortium. It is evident from
the records that the deceased was survived by three legal
representatives, i.e., his widow and two children. Thus, in view of the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex in the case of Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (supra), all three legal representatives are
entitled to get compensation under the head of Loss of consortium.
Thus, in view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, a sum of
Rs.1,45,200/- (i.e., Rs.48,400/- X 3) is awarded under the head of Loss
of consortium.
13. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amounts of
compensation under the head of Loss of estate & Funeral expenses. In
view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded as
compensation under the head of Loss of estate and similarly, a sum of
Rs.18,150/- is awarded as compensation under the head of Funeral
expenses is enhanced to Rs.18,150/-.
14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for the following amount of
compensation:-
Sr.
No.
Head Amount in rupees.
1 Future Loss of Dependency. 10,50,000/-
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:39:04 IST 2026
C/FA/2145/2010 (GJHC240440192010) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
2 Loss of Consortium. (+) 1,45,200/-
3 Loss of Estate. (+) 18,150/-
4 Funeral Expenses. (+) 18,150/-
5 Total Compensation 12,31,500/-
6 Less : Compensation awarded
(-) 7,81,000/-
by the learned Tribunal.
7 Net amount of
Compensation
4,50,500/-
15. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimants
shall be entitled for an additional compensation to the tune of
Rs.4,50,500/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till
realization. The said rate of interest is maintained; accordingly, the
original claimants shall be entitled to 7.5% of interest per annum on the
additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition till its realization.
16. Thus, the parties as held responsible by the learned Tribunal are
directed to satisfy the award, including the additional amount of
compensation along with interest within six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. Upon depositing the awarded amount
along with interest, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the same to the
original claimant/s (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due
verification.
17. In view thereof, both the captioned appeals preferred by the
original claimants and original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company
stand partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award stand
modified to the aforesaid extent.
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:39:04 IST 2026
C/FA/2145/2010 (GJHC240440192010) JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2026
18. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this
Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith.
Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal
concerned. No order as to costs.
19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN...
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 12:39:04 IST 2026