After Bolero Puncture Crash Killed Her Husband, Gujarat HC Removes 40% Negligence Finding Against Him, Raises Compensation For Widow And Two Children To ₹47.64 Lakh

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 40% negligence to the deceased, Jamubhai Goniyabhai Gamit

The court held

The appeal was allowed in part. The Court set aside the finding of negligence against the deceased and held the Bolero driver solely responsible.

It also directed

It enhanced the total compensation to ₹47,64,600, resulting in additional compensation of ₹20,01,840, with interest at 9% on the enhanced amount. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation and interest within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimants by NEFT/RTGS after verification

01Facts

On 14 April 2011, a collision between a Maruti Alto and a Bolero resulted in the death of the Alto’s driver, Jamubhai Goniyabhai Gamit.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–3

His wife and two children brought a claim petition. The Tribunal attributed negligence to both drivers in the ratio of 40:60 and awarded ₹27,62,760 in compensation. The claimants appealed, challenging the finding of 40% negligence against the deceased and seeking enhanced compensation

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–3

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 40% negligence to the deceased, Jamubhai Goniyabhai Gamit

p. 2 · ¶ 3–4

ii.Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement, including under the heads of dependency and non-pecuniary losses

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–7

03Law Applied

The Court relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, for adding future prospects to the deceased’s income and awarding consortium and other conventional heads of compensation

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 6–7

It also relied on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 77486, in fixing compensation for consortium and other non-pecuniary losses.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Bolero driver had been charge-sheeted and was not examined to establish any negligence by the deceased. It also noted that the Bolero driver’s complaint stated that the vehicle had suffered a puncture before colliding with the Alto. On these facts, the Tribunal’s attribution of 40% negligence to the deceased was held to be improper, and the Bolero driver was found solely responsible

p. 2 · ¶ 4

For compensation, the Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹31,390 after deductions. Applying the cited precedents, it added 30% future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 14; it also awarded amounts for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–7