UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTDversusPRITESH KRISHNAKUMAR PANDYA

    C/FA/666/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 666 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting             Yes      No
                                                     √
==========================================================
             UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
                              Versus
             PRITESH KRISHNAKUMAR PANDYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                           Date : 04/02/2026
                           ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is =led by the appellant – The United
Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the impugned judgment and award
dated 02.07.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Jamnagar (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.129 of 2013, whereby the learned Tribunal
was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded
compensation of Rs.44,89,530/- to the original claimants.

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

[2.1] On 02.01.2013, deceased Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Changani Vora
(hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was going on Motorcycle
bearing registration No.GJ-10-BF-4431 from GIDC Phase-II on left side


                                Page 1 of 9
    C/FA/666/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




of the road, slowly, carefuly and when he reached at the place of
accident, one Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-3-AG-4952 came
in very rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of
the deceased as a result of which deceased sustained serious injuries
and was immediately hospitalized however, died on 15.05.2013 i.e.
four months after the accident. Therefore, the legal heirs and
representatives of the deceased =led MACP No.129/2013 seeking
compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the opponent No.1 - driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-
3-AG-4952 (hereinafter referred to as “opponent No.1”) solely
negligent for the accident and was pleased to award Rs.44,89,530/- to
the original claimants. Being aggrieved with the =nding of the learned
Tribunal holding opponent No.1 to be solely negligent for the
accident, appellant herein – original opponent No.3 – The United
Insurance Co. Ltd. has =led the present First Appeal as well as on the
ground of exorbitant compensation being awarded to the original
claimants.

[3.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have chosen not to
appear before this Court.

[4.0] Learned advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavaty appearing for the
appellant – insurance company has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has materially erred in fastening legal liability solely on
original opponent No.3 – insurance company of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-
AG-4952 as the accident took place between two motorcycles and
deceased i.e. driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-10-BF-4431 was equally
negligent in causing the accident and therefore, she has submitted
that learned Tribunal ought to have considered atleast contributory

                               Page 2 of 9
    C/FA/666/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




negligence of the deceased motorcyclist. She has further submitted
that the opponent No.1 appeared before the learned Tribunal and
tendered his oral evidence though learned Tribunal has not properly
appreciated the evidence and discarding the documentary evidence
produced on record i.e. panchnama of scene of accident, which is
admissible document, learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that the
deceased motorcyclist was coming from opposite direction on wrong
side and has come to conclusion that the said version is belated and an
afterthought and therefore, has committed an error in holding the
opponent No.1 i.e. driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-4952 to be solely
negligent for the accident. She has further argued that the learned
Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation which is required to be
interfered with. Hence, she has requested to allow the present appeal.

[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah appearing for the original
claimants has opposed the present appeal by submitting that in
absence of any evidence, learned Tribunal has properly appreciated
the evidence in written statement and no defence has been raised or
taken by the opponent No.1 and whatever evidence led is at the
instance of the present appellant which is nothing but an afterthought
and learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence in holding
that the deceased motorcyclist was not negligent for the accident.
Hence, question does not arise to hold the deceased motorcyclist to
be negligent for the accident. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the
present appeal.

[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 present is a case wherein accident took
place between two motorcycles bearing Nos.GJ-10-BF-4431 and GJ-3-



                               Page 3 of 9
    C/FA/666/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




AG-4952. The complaint (Exh.68) and charge-sheet (Exh.61) is =led
against the driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-4952. Further, claimant
No.1, who is not an eye-witness, has tendered her aLdavit at Exh.40
wherein she has stated that her husband was riding Motorcycle No.GJ-
10-BF-4431 and driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-4952 in very full
speed and in rash and negligent manner endangering human lives and
dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which her
husband sustained serious injuries pursuant to which he was admitted
in the hospital and after a period of four months, her husband died
due to accidental injuries. In this regard, oMence was registered with
Jamnagar City ‘B’ Division Police Station against opponent No.1.

[6.1] The main contention of appellant – insurance company is that
the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the fact
that opponent No.1 was sole negligent in causing the accident who as
driving Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-4952. If we peruse the evidence
produced on record, opponent No.1 appeared before the learned
Tribunal and =led written statement at Exh.29 wherein he has denied
the averments of negligence on the part of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-
4952. The opponent No.1 also stepped into the witness box and
stated that the deceased motorcyclist himself was negligent as he was
coming from opposite direction on wrong side on a one way road and
though the opponent No.1 had taken due care to avoid the accident,
the deceased motorcyclist failed to take suLcient care and dashed
with the motorcycle of opponent No.1. Herein, it is not the case that
opponent No.1 has not appeared before the learned Tribunal and not
rebutted the evidence produced or tendered by claimant No.1. Hence,
in this case, question does not arise to draw adverse inference against
the opponent No.1 i.e. driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-4952. Herein,
speci=c evidence is led before the learned Tribunal and therefore, it


                               Page 4 of 9
    C/FA/666/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




was the duty of the learned Tribunal to appreciate the evidence.

[6.2] Perusing the record and proceeding, written statement (Exh.29)
and evidence of opponent No.1 (Exh.98) i.e. Pritesh Krishnakumar
Pandya, it appears that opponent No.1 has categorically stated that
the deceased motorcyclist was coming from opposite direction on
wrong side of a one way road and alleged accident took place due to
sole negligence of the deceased motorcyclist as the opponent No.1
was driving his motorcycle with moderate speed on correct side of the
road and he was also holding valid and eMective driving license, which
is produced on record. He has admitted that complaint as well as
charge-sheet is =led against him. At the time of appreciating the
evidence, the learned Tribunal has assigned the reason that the
aforesaid version is =rst time declared before the learned Tribunal and
is an afterthought. But, perusing the cross-examination of opponent
No.1, it appears that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in
appreciating the evidence. It is an admitted fact that the accident took
place near the bridge where there was a slope. If we peruse the
panchnama of scene of accident produced at Exh.69, it clearly
transpires that the deceased motorcyclist was coming from opposite
direction on wrong side and motorcycle of the opponent No.1 was on
the correct side of the road. There was a slope and due to this reason,
motorcycle of deceased was in speed and alleged accident took place.
Thus, from day one, version of wrong side is revealed from the record
and also from the panchnama of scene of accident and hence, it
cannot be said that it was afterthought. In the written statement
produced at Exh.29, the opponent No.1 has denied the negligence on
his part and hence, now question does not arise to prove or to show
any contradiction merely on the basis of written statement. In the
written statement, once the opponent No.1 has denied the negligence


                                Page 5 of 9
    C/FA/666/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




and even otherwise when relying on the documents produced on
record i.e. panchnama of scene of accident which substantiates the
version of eye-witness i.e. opponent No.1 and proof of contents of
said panchnama by admission of both the parties ought to have been
considered by the learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal ought to have
relied upon such evidence in light of sections 61 and 58 of the Indian
Evidence Act. As per Section 61, once the contents of document are
proved then it can be relied upon. Without assigning any reason,
learned Tribunal has come to conclusion that said version is an
afterthought and therefore, said =nding of the learned Tribunal is
perverse and not acceptable on the ground that whatever evidence
tendered      before   the   Tribunal    including cross-examination          of
opponent No.1 produced at Exh.98 by the learned advocate for the
claimants, it clearly reveals that there was contributory negligence on
the part of deceased motorcyclist also. In this regard, reference is
required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata
Shukla and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 wherein it is held
that claimant ought to have proved rash and negligent driving on the
part of the driver is sine qua non.

[6.3] Herein, in absence of any evidence and in light of documentary
evidence i.e. panchnama produced at Exh.69 and evidence of
opponent No.1 (Exh.98), learned Tribunal has committed an error in
not properly appreciating the evidence and merely because charge-
sheet is =led against opponent No.1 is not a ground to hold opponent
No.1 solely negligent for the accident. At the same time, this Court has
considered the evidence which shows that the accident took place at 8
p.m. and there was a slope and one way road at the place of accident
and considering the equal size of vehicles, both the drivers ought to


                                  Page 6 of 9
    C/FA/666/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




have taken extra care considering situation of road and keeping in
mind expected and unexpected circumstances while driving the
vehicles. Herein, deceased motorcyclist ought to have taken some
degree or standard of care to avoid the accident as he had the chance
to avoid the accident. Herein, the deceased motorcyclist has also
shown negligence in not avoiding the accident. Considering the
situation of place of accident, in the considered opinion of this Court,
deceased motorcyclist was contributory negligent to the extent of
30% and upto that extent the learned Tribunal has committed an
error.

[7.0] Perusing the evidence more particularly salary certi=cate of the
deceased produced at Exh.89, it appears that the learned Tribunal has
considered yearly income of deceased at Rs.1,20,000/- and as the
deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years and was self-
employed, 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, the learned Tribunal has assessed 25% addition
towards future prospective rise in the salary and accordingly,
considered future annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,50,000/-
[Rs.1,20,000 + Rs.30,000 (Rs.1,50,000 x 25%)] and as the deceased was
married and having four dependents i.e. his widow, two sons and
mother, deducting 1/4 i.e. Rs.37,500/- (Rs.1,50,000 x ¼), yearly loss of
dependency is assessed at Rs.1,12,500/- and thereafter, applying
multiplier of 13 in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in
AIR 2009 SC 3104 as the deceased was in the age group of 46 to 50
years, has applied multiplier of 13 and accordingly, awarded
Rs.14,62,500/- (Rs.1,12,500 x 13) under the head of future loss of
dependency, which does not call for any interference at the hands of


                                Page 7 of 9
    C/FA/666/2022                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




this Court.

[7.1] Further, the learned Tribunal considering the fact that the
deceased died during treatment after four months of the accident has
awarded Rs.28,37,030/- towards actual medical expenditure which
also does not call for any interference. Under the head of general and
non-pecuniary damages, the learned Tribunal in view of the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has
been pleased to award total Rs.1,60,000/- for loss of consortium and
Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate which
also in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper and do
not call for any interference. Hence, the learned Tribunal has been
pleased to award compensation as under and the same is maintained
by this Court.

                       Heads                       Awarded by Tribunal
           Future loss of income                      Rs.14,62,500/-
                    Medical Bills                     Rs.28,37,030/-
              Loss of Consortium                      Rs.1,60,000/-
               Funeral Expenses                        Rs.15,000/-
                    Loss of Estate                     Rs.15,000/-
              Total Compensation                      Rs.44,89,530/-


      However, as discussed in earlier part, the deceased motorcyclist
was contributory negligent to the extent of 30% and to that extent
the aforesaid compensation is required to be sliced down as the
person and/or his legal heirs cannot be paid compensation for the
wrongful act of a tort feasor.

[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, First Appeal is partly allowed.
Impugned judgment and award dated 02.07.2021 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Jamnagar in Motor


                                     Page 8 of 9
       C/FA/666/2022                                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




Accident Claim Petition No.129 of 2013 is modi=ed and original
opponent No.1 i.e. driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-3-AG-4952 is held
negligent to the extent of 70% for the accident and driver (deceased)
of Motorcycle No.GJ-10-BF-4431 is held contributory negligent to the
extent of 30% for the accident and resultantly, the appellant – United
India Insurance Company Limited – original opponent No.3 is liable to
pay compensation of Rs.31,42,671/- (70% of total compensation of
Rs.44,89,530/-) to the original claimants.

[9.0] The learned Tribunal is directed to refund Rs.13,46,859/- (30%
of Rs.44,89,530 towards 30% contributory negligence on the part
of deceased motorcyclist) to the appellant – United India Insurance
Company Limited and thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall disburse
Rs.31,42,671/- (lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal), with
accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee
cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper veri=cation and after following
due procedure.

[9.1] 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 civil applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

                                                                                       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 05/02/2026 10:41:10




                                                   Page 9 of 9