THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.versusRAMESHBHAI JAYSUKHLAL VORA

    C/FA/4184/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4184 of 2025
                                  With
              CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
                   In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4184 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting                Yes     No
                                                       √
==========================================================
                THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
                               Versus
              RAMESHBHAI JAYSUKHLAL VORA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 3
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                          Date : 09/01/2026
                          ORAL JUDGMENT


      Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah waives service of
notice of Admission on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. With the
consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties,
present appeal is taken up for final hearing.

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is filed by the appellant – insurance
company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
08.09.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Rajkot (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.821 of 2022, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased


                               Page 1 of 6
    C/FA/4184/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation of
Rs.3,61,000/- to the original claimants.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal is as follows:

[2.1] On 30.06.2021, Maheshbhai Jaysukhlal Vora (hereinafter
referred to as “deceased”) was going as a pedestrian near Rajkruti
Apartment, near Airport Railway Crossing and at that time, driver of
Car No.GJ-03-LR-6262 came there by driving his car with full speed
in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased due to which the
deceased sustained fatal injuries and died during the treatment.
Therefore, the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed
MACP No.821/2022 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the driver of offending Car solely negligent
for the accident and was pleased to award Rs.3,61,000/- to the
original    claimants.   Being   aggrieved     with the      quantum         of
compensation, the appellant – insurance company has filed the
present First Appeal.

[3.0] Learned advocate Ms. E. Shailaja appearing for the appellant –
insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has
committed an error in considering the loss of dependency as the
deceased was aged more than 70 years and even the claimants
were not entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of
consortium as the claimants who are brother and niece respectively
of the deceased were not dependents of the deceased and
admittedly no proof of income of the deceased was produced on
the record. Further, claimant No.1 is brother of deceased, who is a
retired government employee and pensioner and claimant No.2 is


                                 Page 2 of 6
    C/FA/4184/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




daughter of claimant No.1 i.e. niece of deceased, who is working as
Accountant and having independent income. Hence, the claimants
are not entitled to get any compensation under the head of loss of
dependency. Hence, she has requested to allow the present appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah appearing for the original
claimants has opposed the present appeal by submitting that the
learned Tribunal has not committed any error. The deceased was a
bachelor aged 74 years and residing with the claimants and
therefore, the claimants are rightly considered as dependents of
the deceased and even otherwise, legal representatives are
entitled to file the claim petition. Learned Tribunal has not
committed any error and even otherwise, on the ground of
smallness of amount, present appeal deserves to be dismissed as a
meager compensation of Rs.3,61,000/- is awarded to the claimants.

[5.0] Present appeal is filed on limited ground of quantum of
compensation and therefore, same is considered in narrow
compass.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant – insurance
company and learned advocate for the original claimants and
perusing the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has
considered the evidence produced and adduced by both the parties
including the afÏdavit of the claimant No.2 (Exh.18) and complaint
(Exh.22) and panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.23) and in view of
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla
Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari
Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, wherein it is
held that it is settled law that negligence is required to be proved in



                               Page 3 of 6
   C/FA/4184/2025                           JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on the
touchstone of the preponderance of probability and not beyond
doubt and even as per the complaint, it emerges that the driver of
the offending Car came driving his vehicle in rash and negligent
manner with full speed and coming on wrong side hit the deceased
pedestrian and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly
considered 100% negligence on the part of the offending Car.

[6.1] Perusing the evidence, it appears that before the learned
Tribunal, the insurance company has raised the defence that the
deceased was mentally upset and retartded but in absence of any
evidence, said bare submission on behalf of the insurance company
is not accepted by the learned Tribunal and notional income of the
deceased is considered to award just compensation. The deceased
was more than 70 years of age and hence, multiplier of 5 is applied
in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC
3104 and deceased was doing accounting work and earning
Rs.15,000/- per month but as the alleged accident took place in the
year 2021, his annual income is assessed at Rs.96,000/- however,
considering the age of deceased to be more than 70 years at the
time of accident, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospective income of the
deceased is not considered by the learned Tribunal. As the
deceased was bachelor, ½ deduction i.e. Rs.48,000/- was made
towards his personal expenses and accordingly, compensation of
Rs.2,40,000/- [Rs.48,000 x 5(multiplier)] was awarded under the
head of future loss of dependency.



                             Page 4 of 6
    C/FA/4184/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




[6.2] The claimants herein happen to be brother and niece
respectively of the deceased. So far as locus of claimants to file the
claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act is concerned, legal
representatives are entitled to file the claim petition under Section
166 of the MV Act. Learned advocate has mainly challenged the
impugned judgment and award on the ground that the claimants
are not entitled to get any compensation under the head of future
loss of dependency but keeping in mind the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Birender and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 434
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered provision of
section 166 of the MV Act and interpreted the word “legal
representative” and held that even major married and earning sons
of deceased are also covered under the definition of “legal
representative” and held that is bounden duty of the Tribunal to
consider application irrespective of fact that whether they are fully
dependant on the deceased or not. The claim is not limited towards
conventional heads. Further, in the case of Sadhana Tomar vs.
Ashok Kushwaha reported in 2025 ACJ 484 as well as in the case of
Seema Rani & Ors. vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine (SC) 283, once again the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has interpreted the word “legal representative” and
held that “legal representative” is one who suffers on account of
death of a person due to motor vehicular accident and need not
necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child and the word “legal
representative” under the MV Act should not be given narrow
interpretation excluding those persons as claimants who were
dependant on the deceased’s income. The legal representative
under the MV Act are entitled to get the compensation. Learned
Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation to

                               Page 5 of 6
       C/FA/4184/2025                                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




the claimants under the head of future loss of dependancy. In view
of above, the argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the
appellant that claimants are not entitled to get the compensation is
not accepted.

[6.3] So far as compensation under the head of loss of consortium
is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.88,000/- which is
a meager amount and even otherwise considering the smallness of
amount also i.e. Rs.3,61,000/-, no case is made out to interfere with
the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.


[7.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, First Appeal is dismissed.

[8.0] The           Tribunal           shall       disburse           the        entire         amount           of
compensation (lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal including
the enhanced amount of compensation), with accrued interest
thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT /
RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure.

[9.0] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid.

[10.0]             Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

[11.0]             Pending applications, if any, also stands dismissed.



                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                     (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/01/2026 17:09:49




                                                    Page 6 of 6