Gujarat High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

The deceased scooterist was not contributorily negligent where the car driver was charge-sheeted and not examined.

BHAVNABEN WD-O MAHESHBHAI DAHYABHAI BRAHMKSHTRIYA vs RASULKHAN TAJKHAN BALOCH

Gujarat High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
The deceased scooterist was not contributorily negligent where the car driver was charge-sheeted and not examined.. BHAVNABEN WD-O MAHESHBHAI DAHYABHAI BRAHMKSHTRIYA vs RASULKHAN TAJKHAN BALOCH. Gujarat High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

On 8 December 2009, a collision between a scooter and a car killed Maheshbhai Dahyabhai Brahmkshtriya, a 50-year-old Senior Telephone Operating Assistant with BSNL.

Source reference: pp.1–2, paras. 1–5

His widow and two children filed a motor-accident compensation claim.

Source reference: pp.1–2, paras. 1–5

The Tribunal found both the car driver and Maheshbhai negligent, attributing 5% negligence to Maheshbhai. It assessed his monthly income at Rs.26,012 and awarded compensation; the claimants appealed, challenging both the negligence finding and the adequacy of the award.

Source reference: pp.1–2, paras. 1–5
02

Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 5% contributory negligence to the deceased, or whether the car driver alone was responsible for the accident.

Source reference: p.2, paras. 5–7

2. Whether the compensation should be enhanced by applying future prospects, the appropriate multiplier and conventional heads of compensation, and whether interest should be increased.

Source reference: pp.2–4, paras. 5, 8–12
03

Law Applied

The Court applied the principles in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, including the addition of future prospects for a deceased in permanent employment and the conventional compensation heads.

Source reference: p.3, para. 9; p.4, para. 10

It also relied on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 77486, in fixing consortium at Rs.52,000 for each eligible claimant and compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses at Rs.19,500 each.

Source reference: p.4, para. 10

The Court applied a 30% addition for future prospects, a one-third deduction for personal expenses where there were three dependants, and a multiplier of 13 for the deceased’s age of 50 years and two months.

Source reference: p.3, para. 9
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal’s 5% negligence finding was not sustainable: the car driver had been summoned but was not examined, while the charge-sheet had been filed against him. The Court therefore held the driver solely responsible.

Source reference: p.2, paras. 6–7

It upheld the monthly income of Rs.26,012 because the deceased’s pay-slip was the relevant evidence of his salary at the time of the accident.

Source reference: p.3, para. 8

Given his permanent BSNL employment, the Court added 30% future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 13, calculating future loss of income at Rs.35,16,864.

Source reference: p.3, para. 9

It then awarded consortium and conventional sums in accordance with the cited authorities, bringing total compensation to Rs.37,11,864.

Source reference: p.4, paras. 10–11
05

Holding

The Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of 5% contributory negligence against the deceased, and enhanced compensation by Rs.15,20,329.

The enhanced amount is payable with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment. The Insurance Company was granted eight weeks to deposit it.

Source reference: p.5, paras. 12–13
Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF

BHAVNABEN WD-O MAHESHBHAI DAHYABHAI BRAHMKSHTRIYAvsRASULKHAN TAJKHAN BALOCH

Gujarat High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment