HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTDversusSUMIBEN KAMABHAI MANDOL

      C/FA/3093/2022                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                         R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3093 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

               Approved for Reporting                 Yes          No

==========================================================
                 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                                     Versus
                    SUMIBEN KAMABHAI MANDOL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR A R DWIVEDI(11319) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 10
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 10
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 11,8,9
SERVED BY PUBLICATION IN NEWS for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4,6,7
==========================================================
   CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 18/02/2026
                                ORAL JUDGMENT



1.    This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and award dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Khambhat, Anand in Motor Accident
Claim Petition being MACP No.263 of 2020.

2.    Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though
served, none appears for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
11.

3.    The brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2015, the
deceased was travelling as a passenger in a tractor-trolley. When
the tractor-trolley reached near the place of the accident, the
driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing
it to overturn. As a result of the said accident, the deceased
sustained fatal injuries.



                                        Page 1 of 7
     C/FA/3093/2022                         JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




4.   The learned advocate for the appellant has contended that
the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence
on record and has erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance
Company, despite the fact that the deceased was travelling in the
tractor-trolley as a gratuitous passenger and the risk of a
gratuitous passenger is not covered under the insurance policy.
Therefore, it is submitted that the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the compensation. It is further submitted that the
learned Tribunal failed to properly consider the evidence led by
the Legal Officer at Exhibit 51, and that the testimony of the said
witness was not challenged by the other Insurance Company. In
view of the admitted position, the learned advocate for the
appellant has prayed that the present appeal be allowed and that
the appellant – Insurance Company be exonerated from liability
to pay the compensation.


5.   On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the
respondents has strongly opposed the appeal, contending that
the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on
record. It is submitted that the evidence establishes that the
deceased was travelling in the trolley as a labourer for the
purpose of unloading goods, and therefore, the learned Tribunal
has not committed any error in fastening liability. However, the
learned advocate for the claimants has further contended that
the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess the income of the
deceased and the amounts awarded under various heads of
compensation, and that the compensation has been awarded on
the lower side. Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation be



                             Page 2 of 7
     C/FA/3093/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




enhanced and that the present appeal be dismissed.



6.     Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the Record and Proceedings, it
appears that the present appeal has been preferred by the
Insurance         Company   mainly    on      the   ground        of   liability,
contending that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous
passenger. The involvement of the vehicle and the factum of the
accident are not in dispute. The liability is challenged solely on
the ground that the deceased was travelling in the tractor-trolley
as a gratuitous passenger.


7.     On perusal of the record, it appears that the claimants
have produced documentary evidence at Exhibits 36 to 41,
including the FIR, panchnama. From the affidavit produced at
Exhibit 29, it is evident that negligence on the part of the driver
of the offending vehicle is established. Opponent No. 1 did not
step into the witness box to rebut the said evidence. It has also
come on record that the deceased was travelling in the tractor-
trolley as a labourer, and the tractor was loaded with compost.
No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The tractor slipped
into a drain and overturned, resulting in the accident.


8.     Since the deceased was travelling in the trolley as a
labourer, in view of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, the risk of such a person is covered under the policy.
Therefore, the deceased cannot be said to be a gratuitous
passenger, and the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the


                                Page 3 of 7
      C/FA/3093/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




award.


9.      So far as the contention of the learned advocate for the
appellant that the trolley was not covered under the policy is
concerned, it is required to be noted that the trolley was
attached to the tractor at the time of the accident. Once the
trolley is attached to the tractor, both together constitute a
single vehicle. In this regard, reference may be made to the
decision in Royal Sundaram v. Smt. Honnamma, AIR 2025
SC 2641. The accident occurred due to the tractor-trolley
overturning. As per the definition of “motor vehicle” under the
Act, it includes any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for
use upon roads and also includes a trailer. Therefore, the
contention raised by the Insurance Company is without merit,
and it is liable to pay the compensation.


10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has properly
appreciated the evidence on record and has not committed any
error in fastening liability upon the appellant – Insurance
Company. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are just, legal
and in accordance with the settled principles of law, warranting
no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal, being
devoid of merits, stands dismissed. However, in exercise of
powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
under Section 168 of the MV. Act and to ensure that just and
proper       compensation   is   awarded,      this   Court       deems       it
appropriate to enhance the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal, for the reasons recorded herein-below.

                                 Page 4 of 7
      C/FA/3093/2022                         JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




11.     It is true that no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been
filed by the claimant; however, under Order XLI Rule 22 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, cross-objections may be considered on
the basis of submissions, and filing of cross-objections is not
always necessary. In this regard, reference is required to be
made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Ravindrakumar Sharma v. State of Assam, reported in
(1999) 7 SCC 435, and Saurav Jain and Another v. A.B.P.
Design and Another, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 633, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a party can raise
arguments against the findings in an appeal without having to
file cross-objections.


12.     Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
(Three Judges Bench) in Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16 SCC
467, wherein it has been observed that even in the absence of a
cross-objection by the claimant, there is no bar to enhancing the
awarded compensation. The Court should not adopt a hyper-
technical approach and must ensure that just and proper
compensation is awarded to the affected person or claimant.


13.     Considering that the accident occurred in the year 2015,
the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into account the
minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time for determining
just compensation, which were Rs. 7,240/- per month. Although
the claimants have neither filed a cross-objection nor preferred
an appeal for enhancement, it is well settled that the duty of the
Court is to award just, fair and reasonable compensation


                               Page 5 of 7
      C/FA/3093/2022                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




irrespective of such technicalities. In the considered view of this
Court, the appropriate monthly income of the deceased deserves
to be reassessed at Rs. 7,240/- instead of Rs. 4,000/- as
determined by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has correctly
added 40% towards future prospects, rightly deducted one-
fourth towards personal and living expenses, properly applied
the multiplier of 15, and appropriately awarded compensation
under the conventional heads. Accordingly, only the aspect of
monthly income requires modification, while the remaining
findings of the Tribunal call for no interference.



14      Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is
reassessed at Rs. 7,240/- instead of Rs. 4,000/- as determined
by the Tribunal. After adding 40% towards future prospects, the
monthly income comes to Rs. 10,136/- (Rs. 7,240 + Rs. 2,896).
After deducting one-fourth towards personal and living expenses,
the net monthly dependency comes to Rs. 7,602/- (Rs. 10,136 –
Rs. 2,534). Applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency
is recalculated as Rs. 7,602 × 12 × 15 = Rs. 13,68,360/-.



15.     Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 13,68,360/-
towards        loss    of   future   income.        Upon    recalculating           the
compensation under the conventional heads, the amount is as
under:


    Sr. No.            Nature of heads                       Amount
1               Future loss of income
                                                   Rs.13,68,360/-
2               Loss of estate                     Rs.15,000/-


                                     Page 6 of 7
      C/FA/3093/2022                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




 3              Loss of consortium                        Rs.2,40,000/-
 4              Funeral expenses                          Rs.15,000/-
                Total                                     Rs.16,38,360/-


16. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.6,12,360/- (Rs.16,38,360 – Rs.10,26,000/-)
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
the claim petition till realization.


17. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned
Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.16,38,360/-                                            from
Rs.10,26,000/-. Appellant – Insurance Company shall deposit
the said additional amount of Rs.6,12,360/- along with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum, before the Tribunal within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and
proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.


18.     The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the
deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse
the amount accordingly.


19.     Award to be drawn accordingly.


                                                                 (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/02/2026 14:02:07




                                            Page 7 of 7