Gujarat High Court

TAMUBEN RAJKUBHAI BORICHA v. MEHBUBBHAI ISMAILBHAI PATHAN

Court: Gujarat High Court
Case number: FA/1771/2022
Date of judgment: 8 January 2026
Petitioner / Appellant: TAMUBEN RAJKUBHAI BORICHA
Respondent: MEHBUBBHAI ISMAILBHAI PATHAN
CNR: GJHC240233762022

The PDF is the copy from the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset (CC-BY-4.0). The dataset compresses files to save space, so it may differ from the court's own file. It is not a certified copy. The text below is extracted automatically and may contain errors; the PDF is the authoritative version.

C/FA/1771/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1771 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ========================================================== TAMUBEN RAJKUBHAI BORICHA & ORS.

Versus

MEHBUBBHAI ISMAILBHAI PATHAN & ORS.

========================================================== Appearance:

MR MONARCH K PANDYA(11437) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 08/01/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor V ehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is filed by the appellants – original opponent claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 22.10.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Botad (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Mot or Accident Claim Petition No.7 of 2019, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compens ation of Rs.36,40,000/- to the appellants – original claimants i.e. after deducting 20% towards contributory negligence of the deceased.

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

[2.1] On 29.11.2018, at abour 3.00 hours, Rajkubhai Kanubhai B oricha (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was coming from Ra jkot and Page 1 of 9 C/FA/1771/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026 proceeding towards Botad in his Wagon-R Car bearing registration No.GJ-07-BN-6381 and he was driving his car on the left side of the road with moderate speed and when he reached on Rajkot-Bhavnagar Highway, near Bhadar river bridge, one Eicher Truck bearing registration No.GJ-14-W-1144 came in excessive speed in rash and negligent manner on wrong side of the road and said Eicher T ruck collided with the Wagon-R car of the deceased due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his in juries.

Therefore, the legal heirs and representatives of the dec eased filed MACP No.7 of 2019 seeking compensation.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the learned Tribunal held the driver of Eicher Truck to be 8 0% negligent and deceased car driver to be 20% contributory negligent for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.45,50,000/- however, deducting 20% towards contributory negligence of the deceased – driver of Wagon-R Car, the appellants – original claimants were declared entitled to get compensation of Rs.36,40,000/-. Being aggrieved with decision of learned Tribunal holding the deceased driver of Wagon-R car to be 20% contributory negligent as well as on the ground of quantum, the appellants – original claimants hav e filed the present appeal.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Monarch Pandya appearing for the appellants – original claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering contributory negligen ce on the part of deceased and in not considering the admitted inc ome of the deceased which is produced and proved on record and meager compensation is awarded. He has further submitted that merely because there was a head-on collision, is not a ground to de duct the Page 2 of 9 C/FA/1771/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026 compensation towards contributory negligence of the deceased. In this regard, he has relied on the decision of the coordinat e Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs.

Jentibhai Khimjibhai Parmar reported in 2017(0) ACJ 2809;

Samjudaben Wd/o. Afjalkhan @ Kadarkhan Nasratkhan Makrani vs.

Ahmuddin Suleman Muslim reported in 2024 JX (Guj) 1653 and Nishaben Champakbhai Patel vs. Nandlal T. Nishad reported in 2022(0) AAC 219 and has requested to allow the present appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak appearing for the resp ondent No.3 – insurance company has opposed the appeal on the grou nd that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the deceased driver of Wagon-R came to be held 20% contributory negligent after appreciating the evidence on record i.e. complaint (Exh.32) and panchnama (Exh.33), the learned Tribunal has co me to conclusion that there was head-on collision between the Wagon-R car and Eicher Truck on narrow bridge and the deceased car dr iver ought to have taken extra care and ought to have waited for the Eicher Truck to pass over the bridge however, the deceased driver of wagon-R car did not take proper care and was in hurry to cross the bridge and therefore, the accident took place and the car driver has contributed in the accident. Hence, the learned Tribunal has not committ ed any error in holding the deceased driver of Wagon-R car to be 20% negligent for the accident.

[4.1] So far as claim of appellants as regards quantum of compensation is concerned, she has submitted that the learned Tribunal properly considered the income-tax returns and has not committed any error in awarding the compensation. Therefore, sh e has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

Page 3 of 9

C/FA/1771/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026 [5.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellants and l earned advocate for the insurance company and perusing the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence produced and adduced by both the parties including the afÏ davit of the claimant (Exh.21), complaint (Exh.32) and panchnama (Exh.33).

Perusing the said evidence, the learned Tribunal has apprec iated the issue of negligence and come to the conclusion that Eicher Truck No.GJ-14-W-1144 and Wagon-R Car No.GJ-07-BN-6381 are involved in the accident and accident took place on the bridge of riv er Bhadar.

While going through the documentary evidence and panchnama (Exh.33), it appears that both the vehicles collided head on and accident took place on the narrow bridge and considering th e bigger size of Eicher truck in comparison to Wagon-R car, apportionme nt of negligence is done at 80% on the part of driver of Eicher Truck while deceased driver of Wagon-R is held 20% contributory neglige nce on the ground that drivers of both the vehicles ought to have taken proper care while passing on the narrow bridge but in the p resent case, driver of both the vehicles were negligent and the learned Tribunal considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme C ourt 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 has been observed that negligence is required t o be proved in claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability and not beyond doubt and the learned Tribunal appreciating the panchnama ( Exh.33)

has held the driver of bigger size vehicle i.e. Eicher Truc k to be 80% negligent and deceased driver of Wagon-R car to be 20% con tributory negligent considering the principle of res ipsa loquitur as admittedly the appellants – original claimants are not having personal knowledge.

Page 4 of 9

C/FA/1771/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026 Hence, this Court is of considered view that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and after re-scanning and re- appreciating the evidence, this Court deems it appropriate t o endorse the finding of the learned Tribunal qua apportionment of negligence made by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the decisions re lied on by the learned advocate for the appellants in the case of Jentibhai Khimjibhai Parmar (Supra); Samjudaben Wd/o. Afjalkhan @ Kadarkhan Nasratkhan Makrani (Supra) and Nishaben Champakbhai Patel (Supra) are not helpful to the appellants in the peculiar facts of the present case as in the case on hand, the accident took p lace on a narrow river bridge and driver of both the vehicles ought to have taken extra care of expected and unexpected situation. Th e learned Tribunal in the present case has not decided the contributory negligence based on surmises or conjectures that the accide nt took place due to head-on collision between two vehicles. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the H on’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2011) 5 SCC 708 , wherein paragraph 32 reads as under:

“32. It needs little emphasis that even one additional o r different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases and blindly placing reliance on a decision is never proper . It is trite that while applying ratio, the Court may not pick out a word or sentence from the judgment divorced from the context in which the said qu estion arose for consideration. (See Zee Telefilms Ltd. V. Union of India, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 659.) In this regard, the following words of Lord Den ning, quoted in Haryana Financial Corpn. V. Jagdamba Oil Mills, reporte d in (2002) 3 SCC 496, are also quite apt: (SCC p.509, para 22)

“22. …. ‘Each case depends on its own facts and a close sim ilarity between one case and another is not enough because e ven a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deci ding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matUbuntuching the colour of one case against the Page 5 of 9 C/FA/1771/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026 colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.’”

Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal as regards apportionment of negligence does not require any interference by this Court.

[6.0] In order to prove the income of the deceased, the appellants – original claimants have examined one Mr. Harsukhbhai Dakiya, LIC Supervisor, Botad Branch at Exh.24 and have produced income-tax returns and Form-16A of the deceased and income tax return is statutory evidence and document, which is required to be c onsidered and relied upon to award just compensation. Perusing the For m-16A of the deceased for the AY 2016-17 produced at Exh.28, income of deceased was Rs.2,90,207/- per annum and for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, income of the deceased is shown as Rs.3,56,164/- and Rs.6,26,556/- respectively and therefore, taking average of three, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered average income of the deceased as Rs.4,24,309/- per annum i.e.

Rs.35,360/- per month though learned Tribunal has considered per annum income of the deceased as Rs.2,50,000/-. This Court is of considered view that once the average income is assessed as Rs.4,24,309/- per annum as per the documentary and statutory evidence produced on record, there was no reason for th e learned Tribunal to slice down the said income to Rs.2,50,000/-. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr . reported in 2020 ACJ SC 526 , wherein it has been held that income tax return is statutory e vidence and document, which is required to be considered and relied upon to award just compensation. Therefore, this Court is of consid ered view Page 6 of 9 C/FA/1771/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026 that upto that extent, the learned Tribunal has committed an error.

[6.1] It has come on record by school leaving certificate (Exh .37) that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 32 years and he nce in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.

Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , multiplier of 16 would apply. As the deceased was self-employed and his monthly income is considered Rs.35,360/- (Rs.4,24,309/- per annum), 40% i.e. Rs.14,144/- (40% of Rs.35,3 60/-)

towards future prospect is required to be added and thu s, the amount comes to Rs.49,504/- per month. The deceased was admittedly having five dependants and therefore, 1/5 is required to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, monthly loss of dependancy would come to Rs.39,604/- [Rs.49,504 – Rs.9900/- (1/5th of Rs.49,504/-). As discussed above, applying multiplier of 16, appellants – original claimants would be entitled to Rs.76,03,968/- (Rs.39,604 x 12 x 16) towards future loss of dependancy.

[6.2] Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has awarded Rs.16,500/- each under the two conventional heads of loss of estate and funeral expenditures however, this Court is of the view that said amount is require d to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses.

[6.3] 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 Jana Bai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. vs. M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd.

reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the learned Tribunal has Page 7 of 9 C/FA/1771/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2026 committed error in awarding Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellants – original claimants though there are five dependants however, in view of above judgments the appellants – original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased are entitle d for Rs.48,400/- each towards the loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.2,42,000/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 5).

[7.0] Thus, now the appellants original claimants are entitled t o the compensation as under:

Heads Amount

awarded by the

Tribunal

Reassessed by this Court

Future loss of

dependency

Rs.44,72,832/- Rs.76,03,968/-