C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4107 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ========================================================== ASHABA PRAVINSINH RATHOD & ORS. Versus JOGRAJIYA DEVRAJBHAI MEGANBHAI & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR DHAWAN M JAYSWAL(5878) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 18/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.  This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment   and   award   dated   21.04.2023   passed   by   the   Motor Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (Main.)   Surendranagar   in   Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.29 of 2016. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 3. The brief facts of the claim petition are that on 28.06.2015, the deceased, Pravinsinh Bavalbhai Rathod, was travelling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle No. GJ-13-DD-4470, which was being driven by opponent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed. At about 7:00 p.m., near the dispensary of Dr. Satapara   at   Thangadh,   opponent   No.1   suddenly   applied brakes,   as   a   result   of   which   the   deceased   fell   from   the motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed thereto. The applicants contend that the accident occurred solely due to C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 the rash and negligent driving of opponent No.1. They further claim that, due to the untimely death of the deceased, they have suffered   severe   financial   loss   on   account   of   dependency, incurred funeral expenses, and sustained loss of estate and loss of expectation of life. Accordingly, the applicants have claimed compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- from all the opponents jointly and severally. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in appreciating the evidence   on   record. The   deceased   was   travelling   as   a   pillion rider, and the motorcycle was being driven by opponent No.1 in a   rash   and   negligent   manner. Due   to   sudden   application   of brakes, the deceased fell from the motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries,   and   ultimately   succumbed   thereto. The   appellants incurred substantial expenses towards medical treatment and funeral rites. The deceased was 36 years of age at the time of the accident and was serving as a Police Constable in the Police Department. Despite the fact that the death occurred due to the accident, the learned Tribunal erroneously concluded that the deceased died of a heart attack by relying upon oral evidence, while   completely   ignoring   the   medical   papers,   post-mortem report, and other documentary evidence on record. The post- mortem report clearly records the cause of death as intracerebral haemorrhage and cardio-respiratory arrest due to head injury. Even the medical witnesses, namely Dr. Ashit Rampati and Dr. . Binduben   Mukdal,   who   examined   the   deceased,   have categorically stated that the cause of death was haemorrhage resulting from head injury. It was further submitted that when C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 the   appellants   approached   the   Life   Insurance   Company   for insurance benefits, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the death was accidental. Thus, the Tribunal failed to consider this crucial aspect as well. In view of the aforesaid facts and evidence, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent–insurance   company   opposed   the   appeal   and   filed written submissions on behalf of the respondent company. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and that the claim petition itself is not maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as no element of rash or negligent   driving   has   been   established. The   learned   advocate relied upon the accidental death entry produced at Exhibit 53, wherein   it   is   stated   that   the   deceased   suddenly   became unconscious due to a heart attack, as a result of which the motorcycle tilted and the deceased fell on the road. 5.1 It is further submitted that while the deceased was being taken   to   the   hospital,   he   succumbed   to   the   heart   attack. According to the police papers, it is clear that the deceased fell from the motorcycle due to a heart attack and not on account of any   vehicular   accident. It   was   further   submitted   that   the insurance   company   is   not   liable   to   pay   compensation, particularly when the wife of the deceased herself admitted that her husband was sitting behind the motorcycle and fell down due to a heart attack. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of   the   Hon’ble   Apex   Court   in  Smt. Alka Shukla v. Life Insurance Corporation  (SLP No. 32335 of 2016), and also on C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 the   decisions   in  Shanta Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad High Court) and  Surendra Arora v. Manoj Bisla (Delhi High Court). It was contended that death due to a heart attack amounts to a natural death and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, as no accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of opponent No.1. Since the deceased succumbed to a heart attack and merely fell from the motorcycle, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 6. Having   heard   the   learned   advocates   appearing   for   the respective parties and upon perusal of the documents on record, it appears that, in order to substantiate the claim petition, the claimant has produced her affidavit at Exhibit 52. The accident death registration entry No. 53 is produced at Exhibit 53, the panchnama at Exhibit 54, and the post-mortem note at Exhibit 59. Opponent No.1’s driving licence is produced below Exhibit 56 and ownership of offending vehicle is also not in dispute. In her affidavit, the claimant has deposed on oath that the deceased, Pravinsinh Bavalbhai Rathod, was travelling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle   No.   GJ-13-DD-4470,   which   was   being   driven   by opponent   No.1   in   a   rash   and   negligent   manner   and   at   an excessive speed. At about 7:00 p.m., near the dispensary of Dr. Satapara at Thangadh, opponent No.1 suddenly applied brakes, as   a   result   of   which   the   deceased   fell   from   the   motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed thereto. 7. It   appears   that   in   cross-examination   by   the   appellant– insurance company, the claimant stated that she is an illiterate C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 and uneducated lady. She further admitted that her husband died   due  to   a  heart   attack   after  falling  from   the  motorcycle. Relying   upon   this   admission,   the   learned   advocate   for   the insurance company contended that the deceased died due to a heart attack and not on account of any vehicular accident. In support   of   this   contention,   reliance   was   placed   upon   the accident death registration  entry at Exhibit 53, wherein  it is stated   that   the   deceased,   while   travelling   as   a   pillion   rider, suffered   a   severe   heart   attack,   fell   down,   and   became unconscious. 8. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the said evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the deceased died due to a heart attack. However,   upon   close   scrutiny   of   the   accident   death registration   entry,   it   emerges   that   the   said   information   was furnished by opponent No.1, the driver of the motorcycle, who has neither been examined nor stepped into the witness box, despite   having   been   duly   served   with   notice. Therefore,   the possibility cannot be ruled out that such information may have been furnished to the police authority by him to avoid liability or further   legal   consequences. Significantly,   no   independent   or corroborative evidence has been produced before the Tribunal to establish the veracity of the said entry. 9. Merely on the basis of the admission made by an illiterate lady,   who   admittedly   had   no   personal   knowledge   of   the occurrence and was not present at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has relied upon the accident death entry in isolation. It C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 is   pertinent   to   note   that   in   her   affidavit,   particularly   in paragraph   10   of   the   claim   petition,   the   claimant   has   clearly narrated the manner in which the accident occurred and has specifically   attributed   negligence   to   opponent   No.1. The   said aspect of rash and negligent driving has not been challenged by the insurance company in cross-examination. Despite this, the learned Tribunal, solely relying upon the admission in paragraph 11 and without properly appreciating the contents of the affidavit and the evidence on record, concluded that the death occurred due to a heart attack. On the contrary, the post-mortem report at Exhibit 59, particularly Column No. 23, records the cause of death as “intracerebral haemorrhage and cardio-respiratory arrest due to head injury.” Thus, the medical evidence clearly establishes that the cardio-respiratory arrest was a consequence of the head injury sustained in the accident. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the insurance company, without raising any proper defence or disproving the fact   that   the  claimant   sustained  a   head  injury   and  that  the cardio-respiratory   arrest   occurred   as   a   consequence   of   such injury, has failed to discharge its burden of proof and has relied merely, with a view to avoid liability, upon a stray answer given by   the   uneducated   claimant   lady. The   learned   Tribunal,   in isolation and without any corroborative evidence or supporting material,  has relied  upon the said admission. In the present case, although the death of the deceased has been described as cardiac arrest, the medical evidence clearly establishes that the cardio-respiratory arrest was a consequence of the head injury C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 sustained in the accident. In such circumstances, the question put   to   the   illiterate   claimant   during   cross-examination   was mixed and ambiguous. It was the duty of the learned Tribunal to clarify the question and ensure that the witness understood it correctly   before   recording   her   answer. However,   the   learned Tribunal failed to consider this aspect. Moreover, the learned advocate appearing for the claimant also did not re-examine the witness on this point to remove the ambiguity and place the correct facts on record. A Presiding Officer is not a mute or silent spectator. Judges are not mere recording machines; rather, they are   active   participants  who   must   elicit  relevant  material  and apply judicial intelligence to discover the truth. 11. It   appears   from   the   record   that   no   evidence   has   been produced on record, nor has any medical expert been examined, to prove that the deceased first suffered a heart attack or cardio- respiratory   arrest   and   thereafter   fell   down,   resulting   in   head injury. Such   a   hypothesis   remains   unproved   and unsubstantiated. Merely   relying   upon   the   accident   at   death entry, the learned Tribunal erred in concluding that the death was natural and not attributable to rash and negligent driving. It is also pertinent to note that opponent No.1 has not entered the witness  box,  and therefore,  the evidence  led  by the claimant regarding rash and negligent  driving remains  uncontroverted. The accident, therefore, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of opponent No.1. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 considered   view   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has   committed   a serious error in concluding  that the deceased  died a natural death due to a heart attack or cardio-respiratory arrest. 13. It is needless to state that while deciding a motor accident claim, the Tribunal is required to apply the standard of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities and not the strict standard   of   proof   beyond   reasonable   doubt   as   applicable   in criminal   trials. The   approach   and   role   of   the   courts   while examining evidence in motor accident claim cases should not be to find fault with the non-examination of the best eyewitness, as may   be   done   in   a   criminal   trial,   but   rather   to   analyse   the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the version   of   the   claimants   is   probable   and   acceptable. In   this regard, this Court deems it proper to refer to the the judgments of   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635. However, while appreciating   the   evidence   in   the   present   case,   the   learned Tribunal has relied heavily upon a stray answer given by the illeterate-uneducated   claimant   during   her   cross-examination. The claimant being an illiterate lady, the Tribunal, solely on the basis of such admission, in isolation accepted the version that the   deceased   fell   from   the   motorcycle   due   to   a   heart   attack without   any   evidence. Significantly,   opponent   No.1,   who   was driving   the   motorcycle   and   though   he   was   impleaded   as   a respondent, has neither been examined as a witness nor stepped into   the   witness   box   or   rebutted   the   evidence   tendered   by claimant. Page 8 of 14 C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 14. The   evidence   led   by   the   claimant   attributing   rash   and negligent   driving   to   opponent   No.1   has   thus   remained uncontroverted and ought to have been duly considered by the learned   Tribunal. Prima   facie,   the   said   evidence   establishes negligence on the part of opponent No.1, which is sufficient to discharge   the   burden   of   proof   required   in   a   motor   accident claim. Significantly, this version has not been rebutted by the best possible witness, namely opponent No.1 himself. 15. It appears for the record that instead of appreciating the evidence in light of the aforesaid settled principles of law, the learned   Tribunal   relied   upon   the   AD   Entry,   which   was admittedly furnished by opponent No.1. It is well settled that the question of negligence, which is essential for passing an award in a motor accident claim, must be determined on the basis of the evidence available before the Tribunal. Though police records may be looked into keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act, mere production of such documents cannot, by itself, form the   sole   basis   for   recording   findings,   particularly   when   the contents thereof are disputed and not proved in accordance with law. 16. As discussed hereinabove, the possibility cannot be ruled out that opponent No.1 furnished such information to the police to   avoid   his   liability   and   further   legal   consequences. The contents   of   the   accident   death   entry,   therefore,   cannot   be accepted as gospel truth. Mere production of such a document is insufficient to presume that the deceased died solely due to a heart   attack,   especially   when   the   post-mortem   report   clearly C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 attributes the cause of death to intracerebral haemorrhage and cardio-respiratory arrest due to head injury. It is also relevant to note that in the present case, the Life Insurance Corporation has repudiated   the   claim   on   the   ground   that   the   death   of   the deceased was accidental, which further fortifies the case of the claimants. 17. Considering the post-mortem note and the cause of death recorded therein, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in appreciation of   evidence. The   insurance   coverage   is   not   in   dispute. The involvement of the vehicle is duly proved, and the policy was valid on the date of the accident, as evidenced by the insurance policy produced at Exhibit 58. Therefore, the insurance company is   liable   to   satisfy   and   indemnify   the   award   on   behalf   of opponent No.1, the owner of the motorcycle. 18. So far as the Janvajog Entry produced at Exhibit 53 is concerned, an objection was raised at the time of marking the document as an exhibit, whereupon the learned Tribunal passed an order below Exhibit 52. However, such a document is not admissible in evidence per se under Sections 160 and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and yet the learned Tribunal has relied upon the same. 19. The learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgments   of   the   Hon’ble   Apex   Court   in  Smt. Alka Shukla (supra), Shanta Devi (supra)  and  Surendra Arora (supra); however, the said judgments do not render any assistance in the facts of the present case in light of the law laid down by the C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 Hon’ble Apex Court in 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 or 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 question 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 Denning, quoted in Haryana Financial Corpn. V. Jagdamba Oil Mills, reported 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 similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the 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.’” 20. As this Court has come to the conclusion that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not holding opponent No.1 negligent and that the claimants have successfully proved their case, the claimants are entitled to compensation. The accident occurred in the year 2015, and nearly ten years have elapsed since   then.   In   such   circumstances,   this   Court   deems   it appropriate to avoid an unnecessary remand of the case, which would only result in a futile and prolonged exercise, particularly when   sufficient   evidence   is   already   available   on   record.   The deceased was in government service, and his pay slip as well as date of birth are duly proved on record. Therefore, applying the settled principles of law, this Court considers it appropriate to C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 itself   compute   the   quantum   of   compensation   rather   than remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suvej Singh v. Ram Naresh, Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1405. 21. Now   coming   to   the   quantum   of   compensation,   it   is undisputed that the deceased was serving as a Police Constable. His date of birth was 03.05.1979, and the accident occurred on 28.06.2015; therefore, the deceased was 36 years old at the time of the accident. As per the affidavit at Exhibit 60, the deceased was   drawing   a   gross   salary   of   Rs.17,587/-. After   deducting professional  tax  of Rs.200/-, cycle  allowance of Rs.20/-,  and washing allowance of Rs.45/-, the net monthly income comes to Rs.17,322/-. For the purpose of calculating just and reasonable compensation, the monthly income is rounded off and taken as Rs.17,300/-. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of   36–40   years   is   “15”. Hence,   the   multiplier   required   to   be applied is ‘15’. 22. Further, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,   an   addition   of  50%  towards   future prospects   is   required   to   be   made,   as   the   deceased   was   a permanent   government   employee. Accordingly, 50%   of Rs.17,300/-,   i.e.  Rs.8,650/-,   is   added,   and   thus   the   total monthly income comes to Rs.25,950/-. 23. As   the   claimants   are  five   in   number,   in   view   of   the C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 principles laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), one-fourth (1/4th) of the income,  i.e.  Rs.6,487.50/-, is  required  to be  deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction,   the   monthly   loss   of   dependency   comes   to Rs.19,462.50/-. Accordingly, the annual loss of dependency is Rs.2,33,550/-  (Rs.19,462.50  × 12). Applying the multiplier  of “15”, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.35,03,250/- (Rs.2,33,550 × 15). 24. Thus,   the   total   compensation   payable   to   the   claimants would be as under: Future loss of income Rs.35,03,250/- Loss of consortium Rs.48,400/-x 5= Rs.2,42,000/- Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- Total Rs.37,81,550/- 25. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 37,81,550/-  with interest at the rate of 9%  per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 26. For   the   reasons   recorded   above,   the   present  appeal is allowed. The   impugned   judgment   and   award   passed   by   the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The claimants are herein   entitle   to   get  Rs.37,81,550/- towards compensation from the date of the claim petition till its realization. Respondent – Insurance Company shall deposit the said compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, before the Tribunal within a period of  four weeks from the date of receipt of this C/FA/4107/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2025 order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 27. Out of the awarded amount of compensation, 70% shall be invested in fixed deposits in any nationalised bank in the names of the respective claimants for an initial period of five years. The remaining   30%   shall   be   paid   to   the   claimants,   after   due verification, by transferring the said amount to their respective bank accounts  through RTGS/NEFT  forthwith.  The  claimants shall   not   be   entitled   to   avail   any   loan   or   advance   against, withdraw from, or create any encumbrance upon the aforesaid fixed   deposits   without   prior   permission   of   this   Tribunal. However,   the   periodical   interest   accrued   on   the   said   fixed deposits shall be paid to the claimants from time to time. 28. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit   court   fees   on   amount   of   compensation   and   thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 29. Award to be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/12/2025 14:00:41