THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTDversusSHATISHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI CHHAG

     C/FA/1332/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1332 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

==========================================================
         Approved for Reporting         Yes      No

==========================================================
              THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
                                Versus
              SHATISHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI CHHAG & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR A R DWIVEDI(11319) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 21/01/2026

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1.     Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award

dated 04.12.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kheda

at Nadiad, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor

Accident Claim Petition No.875/2017, the appellant – Insurance Company

has preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).


2.     Heard Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia, learned counsel for the appellant –

Insurance Company and Mr. A.R. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent

No.1. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2.


                                   Page 1 of 7
     C/FA/1332/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




3.     It is the case of the appellant that on 23.07.2017, the claimant was

going on the motorcycle bearing No.GJ-11-BG-3875 on correct side of the

road and when he reached at the place of accident at about 06:30 a.m, one

car bearing No.GJ-23-AN-9339 came in full speed and in rash and negligent

manner, dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant. In the said incident,

the claimant got injuries. Therefore, the claimant filed claim petition seeking

compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the

Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded

compensation of Rs.7,86,788/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.


4.     Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal

has committed error in awarding exorbitant compensation. Though the

driver of offending car filed a written statement, wherein he has denied the

factum of accident, his negligence and even tendered the evidence before

the Tribunal, the Tribunal overlooked the said vital aspects and held driver

of the car sole negligent in causing the accident. Further, the Tribunal has

committed error in not considering the contributory negligence on the part

of the claimant. It is submitted that the FIR is filed by the third party, who

was not eyewitness. Merely FIR is filed and chargesheet is filed against the

driver of car, would not in any manner enough to hold car of the driver sole

negligent. He has further submitted that, to prove the income, income tax

returns for previous three years were produced before the Tribunal,

however, only ITR for the year 2015-17 came to be considered. In absence of

latest ITR, the Tribunal ought to have considered average income of the



                                   Page 2 of 7
     C/FA/1332/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




claimant rather to consider last three years income. The claimant was having

newspaper agency, but he already surrendered the same as he was not able

to do the same. Therefore, in such background of the facts, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very exorbitant and wrongly held

driver of the car sole negligent.


5.     Learned counsel for the original claimant has opposed the present

appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the

evidence on record and that no error has been committed by the Tribunal. A

charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the car, and merely

because he was acquitted, it cannot be presumed that he was not negligent

in causing the accident. He further submitted that the alleged accident

occurred due to the sole negligence of the car driver, who was driving the

vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed into the

motorcycle without giving any signal or having any reflector. He has also

argued that a new case has been developed in the written statement as well

as in the evidence tendered before the Tribunal. However, considering the

panchnama and the facts emerging from the evidence on record, the

Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at the

conclusion that the driver of the car was solely negligent. Therefore, the

Tribunal has not committed any error. So far as the aspect of income is

concerned, the accident took place in the year 2017, and this is not a case

where exorbitant income has been shown after the accident or where

fabricated income-tax returns have been filed. Hence, as per the settled




                                    Page 3 of 7
     C/FA/1332/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




position of law, the Tribunal has properly appreciated the documents

tendered by the claimant and awarded just compensation. He has,

therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.



6.     Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon

perusal of the record, it appears that the Tribunal has properly considered

the evidence produced on record at Exh.34. The said evidence, qua the

allegations made against respondent No.2, remained unchallenged, as the

claimant was not cross-examined by the driver of the car. Respondent No.2

filed his written statement and tendered his evidence at Exh.64. In the

cross-examination of respondent No.2, the claimant has categorically denied

any negligence on his part. Not only that, he has stated that he tried to

avoid the accident, but could not apply the brakes as the accident occurred

in a spur of the moment. He has further stated that respondent No.2 was

driving the car at full speed in a rash and negligent manner without showing

any indicator or signal.


7.     It is well settled that while taking a turn on a main road or approach

road, it is the duty of the driver of the vehicle to exercise due care, maintain

proper control, and drive at a reasonable and controllable speed. On perusal

of the evidence produced at Exh.64 and the cross-examination of the said

witness, it transpires that respondent No.2 admitted that whatever he had

stated in the written statement and deposition was disclosed for the first

time before the Tribunal.




                                   Page 4 of 7
      C/FA/1332/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




8.      The Tribunal has also taken into consideration that a charge-sheet

was filed against respondent No.2, the panchnama of the scene of accident,

and the fact that the motorcycle was damaged from the front side and front

tyre was found broken and the iron rod of the jumper also band. It has

further been noted that the driver of the car fled from the spot after the

accident and, therefore, the vehicle – car was not found at the time of

drawing the panchnama.

9.      Considering the size of the car, which is comparatively larger, and the

manner in which the accident occurred, this Court is of the considered view

that the Tribunal has committed no error while appreciating the evidence

and in holding respondent No.2 solely negligent in causing the accident.

Hence, the contention taken by the Insurance Company qua contributory

negligence on the part of the claimant is not sustainable. Further, in light of

the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrikrishna Kanta Singh v.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, reported in 2025 INSC

394, in absence of any cogent evidence, contributory negligence cannot be

inferred, as no sufÏcient material is available on record to establish

contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist.



10.     So far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has considered fact that

the claimant was having newspaper agency and earning Rs.15,000/- and ITRs

for the year 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2016-17 are produced at Exhs:56 and 59,

which are prior in point of time of the accident. Considering the aforesaid

fact, there is no chance of manipulation. It is needless to say that once


                                   Page 5 of 7
      C/FA/1332/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




income tax returns are filed, they include all sources of income and

constitute statutory documents. In this regard, reference may be made to

the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United

India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in 2020 ACJ 526 (SC),

wherein it has been held that income-tax returns are statutory documents

and the income of the claimant - deceased ought to be considered as per

the ITRs. Therefore, in the case on hand, the income of the claimant as

assessed by the Tribunal based on income tax returns for the A.Y 2016-17 as

Rs.2,15,400/- p. a. is just and proper.

11.     So far as body disablement aspect is concerned, the Tribunal has

assessed 60 % disablement of the body as a whole and as both the parties

were agreed and no objection is taken by the other side, this Court deems

fit not to disturb the said aspect. Further, the claimant was 26 years, 10

months and 21 days old, multiplier of 17 is rightly applied as per decision in

case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.



12.     It is needless to say that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent

legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the

victims, or their families and there is no bar that compensation is restricted

up to the claim by the claimant and the High Court and Tribunal have to

award the compensation up to that extent. In this regard reference is

required to be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2



                                     Page 6 of 7
        C/FA/1332/2022                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2026




  Supreme Court Cases 274, wherein, it has been observed that there is no

  restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount

  claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence

  brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is

  entitled to get more compensation than claimed. Therefore, upon

  appreciating the evidence and in view of the settled position of law as cited

  above, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.7,86,788/-

  though lesser amount is claimed by the claimant. Hence, no any inference is

  called for in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.



  13.       For the foregoing reasons and observations, present appeal fails and

  is hereby dismissed. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the

  concerned Tribunal forthwith.




                                                                            (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

  SUCHIT
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/01/2026 17:20:29




                                                    Page 7 of 7