Holding

The Court held that the deceased driver was not negligent, attributing 100% negligence to the jeep driver, and consequently enhanced the compensation award in accordance with applicable case law.

Summary

The appellants, the family of the deceased Gordhanbhai Shivabhai Patel, appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award that held the deceased 25% negligent and granted Rs.12,98,235 in compensation. They contended that the jeep driver was wholly at fault and that the Tribunal failed to include prospective income, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium in the quantum of damages. The High Court examined the panchnama evidence, concluding that the jeep veered into the wrong lane and the deceased was not negligent, thereby setting aside the Tribunal’s 25% negligence finding. Applying precedents, the Court increased the compensation to Rs.23,85,487, added prospective income, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, and ordered interest at 9% after deducting the condoned delay period. The Tribunal was directed to pay the enhanced amount within eight weeks, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal correctly attributed 25% negligence to the deceased driver.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, including prospective income, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, is appropriate.
Whether the interest rate on the enhanced compensation should be 8% or 9% and the effect of the condoned delay on interest.

Subjects

negligencemotor accidentcompensationquantum of damagesprospective incomeloss of estatefuneral expensesloss of consortiuminterest ratehigh court appeal

Judgment

C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1956 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

=========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

=========================================================
KAPILABEN GORDHANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
IRFANBHAI ISUBHAI MANSURI & ORS.
=========================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
=========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 07/01/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal arises from judgment and award

dated 15.06.2012 passed in MAC Petition No. 303/2009

passed by MAC Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at

Himmatnagar.

2. By way of the said judgment and award, the Tribunal

was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and was

further pleased to order opponent No. 1 and 3 to be jointly

Page 1 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

and severally liable to pay the claimant (the present

appellants), a sum of Rs. 12,98,235/- with simple interest

at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the

filing of the petition till realisation, together with

proportionate costs of the petitioners.

3. The accident in question happened on 13.03.2009.

Allegedly, one Mr. Gordhanbhai Shivabhai Patel was

travelling in his Maruti car bearing Registration No. GJ-01-

HE-7730. He was travelling towards Himmatnagar and close

to the vicinity of a bypass convergence of three roads at

Hansalpur village, at about 5:15 pm in the evening,

allegedly, a jeep bearing Registration No. GJ-07-AG-1359,

being driven in rash and negligent manner, collided with the

vehicle of the said Gordhanbhai Shivabhai Patel.As a result

of the said accident, the said Mr. Gordhanbhai Shivabhai

Patel sustained severe injuries and ultimately, during the

course of his treatment, he succumbed to the said injuries.

The said Mr. Gordhanbhai Shivabhai Patel shall hereinafter

be referred to as “the deceased”.

Page 2 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

4. Learned advocate for the appellants who are the

original claimants, have challenged the said award both on

the count of negligence and quantum.

5. Referring to the Panchnama Exhibit-29, learned

advocate Mr. R.K. Mansuri for the Appellant, had submitted

that the Tribunal has erred in appreciating the said

Panchnama and has erred by attributing 25% negligence to

the deceased. It was submitted that looking to the said

Panchnama, it is clear that the deceased was travelling on

the correct side of the road and the offending vehicle jeep

veered towards the vehicle of the deceased. It was also

submitted that this is also apparent from the damage

sustained to the vehicles in as much as the Maruti car has

suffered damage on the center line of the vehicle whereas

the jeep has suffered damage towards the passenger side

(i.e., the right side). He also submitted that the Insurance

company has not even examined the owner or driver of the

concerned jeep and therefore, also the burden to prove that

the said jeep was not negligent has not been discharged by

the Respondent Insurance Company. It was thus submitted

Page 3 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

that this Court may kindly interfere in the finding of the

Tribunal qua the negligence attributed to the deceased and

be further pleased to hold the driver of the jeep to be solely

negligent.

6. It was further submitted that indeed, the computation

of the monthly income of the deceased and the

corresponding future loss by the Tribunal, are by and large,

fair and reasonable. However, the learned advocate

submitted that the Tribunal has failed to account for the

prospective income to the tune of 25%, keeping in view the

age of the deceased, being 41 years. It was submitted that

as per the dictum of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus

Pranay Sethi reported at (2017) 16 SCC 680, even the

persons who are self-employed are eligible to be granted

prospective income. It was next submitted that apart, the

Tribunal has erred in not allowing the compensation on

count of Loss of Estate. He urged that such Loss of Estate

may kindly be awarded to the tune of Rs. 18,150/- in the

terms of settled case law. He further submitted that Funeral

Expenses too have been awarded on the conservative side.

Page 4 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

He thus, submitted that the same may also be awarded at

the rate of Rs.18,150/-. It was lastly submitted that the

deceased was survived by his parents, a wife and by two

sons. It was submitted that all of them are eligible to be

compensated under the head of Loss of Consortium and

accordingly, a sum of Rs. 48,400/- to each of the family

members of the deceased may kindly be awarded by this

Tribunal. No other heads of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal were challenged before this Court.

7. None appears for the respondent no. 1 and 2 being the

driver and owner of the offending vehicle jeep -GJ-07-AG-

1359. On the other hand, learned advocate for the

respondent No. 3 Insurance company has vehemently

supported the judgement and award by submitting that the

Tribunal has not committed any error whatsoever in

assessing negligence. It was submitted that as such, the

Panchnama itself indicates that three roads which

converged were just 25 feet away from the place of accident.

Hence, reasonable caution should have been exercised by

both of the drivers of the vehicles. It was submitted that

Page 5 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

however, the deceased was driving the vehicle so fast that

for about 14 feet, there were brake/skid marks of the

maruti vehicle. And despite such skid marks, the accident

has occurred. Hence, Maruti car was being driven with

excessive speed. Thus, no interference is warranted on the

aspect of determination of negligence and that 25%

negligence is correctly attributed to the Maruti Van.

8. It was next submitted that even if the damage to the

concerned jeep is considered, thereto it is apparent that the

damage sustained by the jeep is on the passenger side (i.e.,

right side) and that therefore too, certain amount of

negligence may be contributed to the deceased. It was

submitted that in the circumstances, the Tribunal has

correctly attributed negligence to the tune of 25% to the

deceased, which may not be interfered with looking to the

evidence on record.

9. Moreover, learned advocate has submitted that at the

time of condoning delay of 803 days in preferring the

present appeal by the appellants, this Court vide order

Page 6 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

dated 10.09.2025, had ordered that the delay is condoned

on the condition that the appellant would not be entitled for

the interest for a period of 803 days.

10. It was further submitted that on quantum, the award

of the Tribunal is sustainable and that therefore, the same

may kindly be confirmed by rejecting the present appeal.

11. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective

parties, this Court proceeds the present appeal in terms

hereinafter.

12. The point of determination which arises for

consideration of this Court in the present appeal is whether

the negligence and the quantum of compensation have been

correctly assessed by the Tribunal? If not, what would the

percentage of negligence that could be attributed to the

deceased, Gordhanbhai Shivabhai Patel in the present

matter? Furthermore, what would be the fair and

reasonable compensation liable to be awarded to the

appellants herein?

13. At the outset, the finding of the Tribunal on negligence

Page 7 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

is at paragraph nos.12,13,14,15 and 16. The Tribunal has

reasoned that as there was a bypass three road near the

place of the accident, it was the duty of both of the driver of

the vehicles concerned to driver their vehicles in moderate

speed.

14. However, reasoned the Tribunal, that looking to the

brake marks of the wheels of the involved vehicles as shown

in Panchnama Exhibit-29, both the drivers of the vehicles

were driving their vehicles with full speed.

15. Further, the Tribunal has reasoned that as the jeep

sustained damage towards the passenger side (i.e., the right

hand side), it can be said that a Maruti car driver was

mostly on the correct side but the jeep driver was

“somewhat” on the wrong side and thus dashed with the

Maruti car. Moreover, the Tribunal observed that

considering that there was sufficient space on the road to

avoid the accident, some negligence may be attributed to the

driver of the motor car, the deceased Gordhanbhai.

16. This Court, however, does not subscribe to the said

Page 8 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

reasoning. The Panchnama is fairly detailed and it appears

that the road from Lolasan to Himmatnagar is situated on a

North-South direction, wherein Himmatnagar was towards

the South and Lolasan towards the North. Hence, for a

vehicle which is travelling from Lolasan towards

Himmatnagar, the correct side of that vehicle would be the

Eastern side as it would be driving on the left side of the

road. That being the case, when the Panchnama qua the

spot of the accident is examined, it is apparent that the oily

liquid which had formed a spot on the road, owing to the

accident, was at about 4 feet from the left side (East Side) of

the road. Thus, it can be stated that till the accident

occurred, the vehicle of the deceased was on the left side

itself.

17. On the other hand, the Panchnama indicates that the

brake marks of the jeep were at the distance of 6 feet,

counting from the Eastern side and those brake marks were

only to the extent of 2 feet. This means that the jeep had

applied the brakes at the nth hour. And almost immediately

after applying brakes by the jeep, the accident had

Page 9 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

occurred. Thus, it can be deduced that driver of the jeep

veered over to the wrong side and spotting the other vehicle,

applied brakes at the nth hour (i.e., at the last minute).

18. It appears that the road concerned was of the width of

24 feet and the brake marks of about 14 feet would indicate

that the Maruti car driver had spotted the offending jeep

and had made full efforts to avoid collision whilst

maintaining in East side. Yet, it appears that the jeep had

come in the wrong side and therefore the Maruti car driver

could not avoid the accident. Of course, the Maruti car

driver paid a very heavy price for the accident. In overall

circumstances, this Court believes that attributing any

negligence to the Maruti car driver would be a travesty of

justice. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal that the

Maruti car driver was 25% negligent is liable to be interfered

with and accordingly the same is set aside, holding the

driver of the jeep to be fully negligent i.e., negligent to the

extent of 100%.

19. Insofar as the computation of compensation is

Page 10 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

concerned, neither side has raised any dispute as the record

indicates that the deceased was filing Income Tax Returns

for about three years. The Tribunal has taken a correct

approach by taking the mean of the income of the said three

years to be the yearly income of the deceased, moreso, when

the deceased was engaged in the work of Broker business at

an Agriculture Produce Market Yard. The record indicates

that for substantiating the income of the deceased, not only

the Income Tax Returns but the license of broker class was

also adduced on record, which has been issued by the

Agriculture Produce Market Yard. Hence, on the fact as is

apparent on record, the finding that the deceased was

earning Rs. 1,48,117/- per annum is sustainable.

20. However, the Tribunal has not included prospective

income for the deceased. Taking the undisputed age of 41

years, duly substantiated by photocopy of the driving

license of the deceased, the prospective income is liable to

be awarded in terms of the decision in Pranay Shethi

(supra), which would be to the tune of 25% and hence the

income would be liable to be enhanced accordingly. The

Page 11 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

relevant paragraph 61(iv) of Pranay Shethi (supra) reads as

follows:

“61(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years
and 10% where the deceased was between the age of
50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means
the income minus the tax component.”
Thus, the annual income would be Rs.1,85,146/-

(computed by multiplying Rs. 1,48,117/- with 1.25).

21. Moreover, as there are total of 5 dependents of the

deceased, therefore the deduction towards the annual

income would be 1/4th based on the judgment of Sarla

Verma and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation

reported at (2009) 6 SCC 121. The relevant paragraph 30 of

Sarla Verma (supra) reads as follows:

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be
made towards personal and living expenses is
calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok
Chandra, the general practice is to apply
standardized deductions. Having considered
several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are
of the view that where the deceased was married,
the deduction towards personal and living

Page 12 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

expenses of the deceased, should be one-third
(1/3rd) where the number of dependent family
members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6,
and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of
dependent family members exceed six.”
Therefore, the remaining amount would be Rs.1,38,860/-

(computed by multiplying Rs.1,85,146/- with 3/4th). The

aforesaid amount would be after deducting ¼ income of the

said deceased. Now, the future Loss of Income would be

Rs.19,44,040/- (computed by multiplying Rs.1,38,860 x

14). The reason this Court has adopted 14 to be multiplier

is in terms of paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma and Others

Versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported at (2009) 6

SCC 121.

“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas1, Trilok
Chandra2 and Charlie3), which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to
25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that
is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-
15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-
13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for
every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9
for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for
66 to 70 years.”
1 (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335
2 (1996) 4 SCC 362
3 (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657

Page 13 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

Adding to the said amount would be the compensation

under the heads of Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses,

each to the tune of Rs. 18,150/-. Therefore, as per the

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi reported at

(2017) 16 SCC 680. The relevant paragraph 59.8 of the

judgment reads as follows:

“59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts
should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years.”
Hence, the additional amount would be Rs.18,150/- x 2,

which is equal to Rs. 36,300/- , as the said amount is liable

to be awarded both under the heads of “Loss of Estate” and

“Funeral Expenses”. Lastly, the Tribunal has also failed to

award amount towards the Loss of Consortium which would

be liable to be paid to each of the five original claimants/

appellants. The same shall be so awarded in terms of the

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay

Sethi (supra), duly followed in United India Insurance Co.

Page 14 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

Ltd, versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported

in (2021) 11 SCC 780 and in case of Rasmita Biswal And

Others Versus Divisional Manager, National Insurance

Company And Another reported in 2022 (2) SCC 767,

and as 10% rise was provided in Pranay Sethi (supra), the

consortium comes to Rs.48,400/- to each of the original

claimants/appellants. Hence, the aggregate amount, liable

to be awarded, under the said head of “Loss of Consortium”,

would be Rs. 48,400/- x 5 which is equal to Rs. 2,42,000/-.

22. No further enhancement to the compensation under

head of Medical Expenses has not been agitated by the

learned advocate for the appellant. Hence, the same is

retained, as awarded by the Tribunal.

23. In the circumstances, the compensation is liable to be

awarded would be as follows:-

Sr.No. Particulars Amount Amount

awarded by the determined by

learned Tribunal this Court

(in Rs.)
1 Future Loss of Income / 15,55,232/- 19,44,040/-

Page 15 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

Loss of dependency (Rs.1,38,860/-

X multiplier of

14)
2 Loss of Estate 10,000/- 18,150/-
3 Loss of Funeral Expenses 3,000/- 18,150/-
4 Loss of Consortium NIL 2,42,400/-

(Rs.48,400/- X

5)
5 Medical Expenses 1,62,747/- 1,62,747/-
TOTAL 17,30,979/- 23,85,487/-
6 Negligence attributed to 25% NIL

the deceased
TOTAL 12,98,235/- 23,85,487/-
Less: Already awarded by 12,98,235/-

the learned Tribunal
Enhanced amount by 10,87,252/-

this Court

24. The interest on the enhanced compensation would be

at the rate of 9%. Indeed, the learned advocate for the

Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal has

awarded interest at 8% and that therefore the interest at

the enhanced amount may also be awarded at 8%.

However, considering the inflationary trends prevailing in

Page 16 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

the country and sensing that the purchase power of

compensation is drastically reduced if it goes into hands of

the claimants after the sustained period of time, this Court

is inclined to award interest at 9% on the enhanced amount

instead of 8% as submitted by the learned advocate for the

Insurance Company. However, in computing the interest,

effect be given to the order dated 10.09.2025, whereby the

interest due to the Appellants, has been ordered to be

deducted for a period of 803 days.

25. The Tribunal shall deposit the aforesaid enhanced

amount within a period of 8 weeks from the availability of

the signed copy of this order. The same shall be deposited

by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal and upon

such deposit, the same shall be disbursed by the Tribunal

as expeditiously as possible, together with any other

undisbursed amount lying with the Tribunal, including the

FDRs, if any.

26. The present appeal stands disposed of as allowed to

the aforesaid extent.

Page 17 of 18
C/FA/1956/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026

27. R & P be forthwith remitted back to the Tribunal.

(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
RIYA VISHWAKARMA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/01/2026 17:21:46

Page 18 of 18