UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF)versusTEJALBEN HIMANSHUBHAI PARASIYA

     C/FA/2763/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2763 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

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

============================================
     UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF)
                              Versus
            TEJALBEN HIMANSHUBHAI PARASIYA & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
============================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 29/01/2026
                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1)     Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
        dated 16.02.2023, passed by the 8th Additional District Judge,
        Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur (who shall hereinafter be
        referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
        Petition No.796 of 2009, the appellant – opponent no.2 therein –
        Central Reserve Police Force (who shall hereinafter be referred
        to as “CRPF”) has preferred the present appeal under Section
        173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be
        referred to as "the Act" for short).

2)     Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. R. Shukla, for the appellant and
        learned Advocate Mr. H. M. Modi, for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
        The respondent no.4 is duly served but remained absent.



                                  Page 1 of 7
     C/FA/2763/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




        Perused the original record and proceedings.

3)     It is the case of the original claimants – respondent nos.1 to 3
        herein, that on 15.12.2008 the deceased Himanshu Shankarlal
        Parasiya (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased” for
        short) was going with his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-01-DB-
        5185 and passing over the Girdharnagar over bridge, at that
        time the opponent no.1 driver of Mazda bearing Reg. No.HR-68-
        3010 came from wrong side in rash & negligent manner and
        dashed his vehicle with the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to
        which the deceased suffered serious fatal injured and during the
        course of treatment he died on 17.12.2008. Therefore, the
        claimants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein,
        the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on
        record has partly allowed the claim petition.

4)     The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
        learned Tribunal has committed error by not considering
        contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and also
        committed error by considering sole negligence of the driver of
        the ST bus and not properly appreciated the evidence and
        granted higher compensation to the claimant by applying wrong
        multiplier. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

5)     The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
        learned Tribunal has committed error by saddling the liability
        and awarded exorbitant compensation to the claimants by
        wrongly considering the income and addition towards future
        prospect of the deceased. He has further submitted that the
        Tribunal also erred in awarding medical expenses. Hence, he has
        requested to allow the present appeal.



                                  Page 2 of 7
     C/FA/2763/2023                             JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




6)     Learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3 has submitted
        that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence
        produced on record and awarded just and proper compensation
        and therefore no interference is called for. Hence, he has
        requested to dismiss the present appeal.


7)     Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and going
        through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has
        considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in
        the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC
        2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in
        2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on
        preponderance of probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered
        the affidavit at Exhibit 19 wherein all the facts of the accident
        have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the
        claim petition. The learned Tribunal has perused the complaint
        at Exhibit 20, panchnama at Exhibit 21, Inquest Panchnama at
        Exhibit 22, PM Report at Exhibit 23, charge-sheet at Exhibit 24,
        affidavit in lieu of examination–in-chief of opponent no.1 at
        Exhibit 34 and opponent no.2 at Exhibit 33, and after perusing
        the evidence the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that
        due to negligence of the opponent no.1 driver of Mazda the
        alleged incident took place and the learned Tribunal has not
        committed any error in deciding negligence of driver of ST Bus.


8)     So far contributory negligence is concerned, the opponent no.1
        has admitted that there was no divider on the road and he was
        overtaking one rickshaw going ahead of him and went on the
        other side of road and thereby it has come on record that at the
        time of accident he was driving his vehicle on the wrong side



                                 Page 3 of 7
     C/FA/2763/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




        and dashed the front part of his vehicle with the motorcycle of
        the deceased. Moreover, the negligence of the opponent no.1 is
        also evident from the evidence produced on record. In this
        regard reference is required to be drawn in the case of
        Shrikrishna Kanta Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance
        Company Ltd., and Ors., Neutral Citation – 2025 INSC 394,
        hence, arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the
        appellant is not acceptable in absence of any material or
        evidence on record.


9)     Now coming to the quantum part, the claimants have submitted
        that the deceased was serving as Electrical Engineer at Vihaan
        System and earning Rs.19,000/- per month and produced Salary
        Slip for the month of November 2008 at Exhibit 29. As per the
        said slip gross monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.18,416/-
        and hence the learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of
        the deceased as Rs.18,400/- which is just and proper. Further,
        as the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of accident on
        the basis of which the learned Tribunal has considered future
        prospective income as 40% and as the deceased was having 3
        dependents 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses
        of the deceased and multiplier of 17 were considered by the
        learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the
        case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
        Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which are just and
        proper. The deceased had sustained fatal injuries and undergone
        medical treatment at various hospitals and on the basis of the
        said fact the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards
        medical expenses which is also just and proper and hence does
        not require any interference by this Court.



                                 Page 4 of 7
      C/FA/2763/2023                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




10)     Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
         National      Insurance        Company       Ltd.     Vs.      Pranay    Sethi,
         reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, has awarded total Rs.77,000/-
         under the three conventional heads, however, this Court is of
         the    view   that    amount     is    required     to   be    reassessed      as
         Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral
         expenses. Therefore, the original claimants are entitled for
         additional amount of Rs.3,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.16,500/-
         =     Rs.1,650/-     towards    loss    of   estate      and    Rs.18,150/-     -
         Rs.16,500/- = Rs.1,650/- towards funeral expenses).


11)     Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
         in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu
         Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o
         Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord
         Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
         666, the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding only
         Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of
         above judgments the original claimants being legal heirs of the
         deceased they are entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards the
         head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss
         of consortium is reassessed as Rs.1,45,200/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X
         3). Therefore, the claimants – respondent nos.1 to 3 are entitled
         for   additional     amount    of     Rs.1,01,200/-         towards     loss   of
         consortium.


12)     As discussed above, the original claimants – respondent nos.1 to
         3 herein are entitled to get compensation computed as under:




                                        Page 5 of 7
      C/FA/2763/2023                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




                   Heads                Awarded by              Reassessed by this Court
                                         Tribunal
             Loss of dependency         Rs.35,03,360/-                Rs.35,03,360/-

               Loss of estate            Rs.16,500/-                  Rs.18,150/-
                                                                  including additional
                                                                 amount of Rs.1,650/-

              Funeral expenses           Rs.16,500/-                  Rs.18,150/-
                                                                  including additional
                                                                 amount of Rs.1,650/-

             Loss of consortium          Rs.44,000/-                 Rs.1,45,200/-
                                                                  including additional
                                                                amount of Rs.1,01,200/-
                                                                   (Rs.48,400/- X 3)

              Medical Expenses           Rs.25,000/-                     Rs.25,000/-

             Total compensation         Rs.36,05,360/-               Rs.37,09,860/-
                                                                including total additional
                                                                amount of Rs.1,04,500/-


13)     In     view    of   above,       as      the       Tribunal   has    awarded      total
         compensation of Rs.36,05,360/-, however, as discussed above
         the claimants – respondent nos.1 to 3 herein are entitled to get
         additional     amount          of     Rs.1,04,500/-             (Rs.37,09,860/-       -
         Rs.36,05,360/-)         with     proportionate          costs    and   interest      as
         awarded by the learned Tribunal.


14)     It is pertinent to note here that in the case on hand though no
         cross objection is filed by the original claimants but perusing the
         record prima facie it appears that the learned Tribunal failed to
         award just and proper compensation and hence keeping in mind
         the Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section
         168 of the MV Act and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
         Court in the case of Ravindrakumar Sharma vs. State of
         Assam reported in (1999) 7 SCC 435 and in the case of
         Saurav Jain and Another vs. A.B.P. Design and Another



                                             Page 6 of 7
      C/FA/2763/2023                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2026




          reported in (2022)18 SCC 633, no bar to consider the
          aforesaid fact and modification in absence of cross objection of
          the claimants.


15)       Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant – Central
          Reserve Police Force stands dismissed with no order as to
          costs. The judgment and award dated 16.02.2023 passed by
          learned 8th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at
          Mirzapur, in MAC Petition No.796 of 2009 stands modified to the
          aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains
          unaltered. The appellant herein – CRPF shall deposit the said
          additional amount of Rs.1,04,500/- along with interest as
          awarded by the Tribunal, 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.

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

17)       Award to be drawn accordingly.




                                                                           (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/01/2026 15:25:55




                                                       Page 7 of 7