C/FA/1359/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1359 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔ ========================================================== RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Versus KIRANBEN PRAVINCHANDRA GAUDANA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR DHARMESH V SHAH(1050) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3 MS DRASHTI D SHAH(11443) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3 NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 17/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company  against   the  judgment  and  award   dated   07.01.2022 passed   by   the   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (Auxi.) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.782 of 2009. 2. Heard Mr. Ratin P Raval, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate with Ms. Drashti Shah, learned   advocate   for   respondent   Nos.1   to   3   and   Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate fort respondent No.4. 3. The   brief   facts   of   the   case   are   that   on   22.11.2008,   the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a rickshaw. When the rickshaw reached the place of the accident, its driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied C/FA/1359/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 brakes, resulting in loss of control. Consequently, the rickshaw collided   with   the  divider,   causing  the   accident,   in  which   the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed thereto. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the   evidence   produced   on   record. It   is   contended   that   the appellant–Insurance Company had no liability, as the rickshaw did not possess a valid permit and was being plied without a permit. In this regard, the RTO Officer was examined at Exhibit- 35   and   the   defence   was   duly   proved;   however,   the   learned Tribunal committed an error in ignoring the same and in not considering the provisions of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further submitted that future pay revision could not have been taken into consideration, as the same occurred in the year 2019, whereas the accident had taken place in the year 2008. Despite this, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation on that basis. It was also submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation under the heads of loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses. Hence, the learned advocate for the appellant has prayed that the present appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents have strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation   in   view   of   the   evidence   available   on   record. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award passed C/FA/1359/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after taking   into   consideration   the   entire   material   on   record   and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeal may be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the affidavit of examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of   applicant   No.1   were   tendered   at   Exhibit-23. To   prove   the income of the deceased, a witness, namely Shri Sunil Kumar V. Desai, who was serving as a Clerk in the office of the Taluka Panchayat, Sanand, was examined at Exhibit-48. The complaint was produced at Exhibit-32, the post-mortem report at Exhibit- 28, and the insurance policy at Exhibit-53. The salary certificate was   produced   at   Exhibit-35,   the   resolution   of   the   6th  Pay Commission   at   Exhibit-36,   and   the   revised   pay   scale   issued pursuant   thereto   was   produced   at   Exhibit-38,   which   was approved by the Local Fund Office, Ahmedabad. The last pay certificate was produced at Exhibit-39. 7. Upon   perusal   of   the   evidence   produced   on   record   and considering the cognate matters being MACP No.2008 of 2009 and MACP No.561 of 2009, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion   that   the   driver   of   the   auto-rickshaw   was   solely negligent in causing the accident in question, and accordingly fixed  the negligence upon the driver of the offending  vehicle. Since the finding with regard to negligence is not in dispute and only the quantum of compensation is challenged, this Court has C/FA/1359/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant. 8. The learned advocate for the appellant mainly submitted that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 53 years  and was serving as a  Talati-cum-Mantri  in the Taluka Panchayat, Sanand, and was drawing a salary of Rs.12,036/- per   month. It   was   contended   that   the   learned   Tribunal committed an error in considering the revised salary certificate produced at Exhibit-39 and in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,460/-, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed. 9. In order to examine the aforesaid contention, this Court has considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is an undisputed fact that, at the relevant point of time, the deceased was working as a Talati-cum-Mantri in the Taluka Panchayat, Sanand, and was holding a permanent Government post. The salary certificate was produced at Exhibit-39. To prove the income of the deceased, a witness, namely Shri Sunilkumar Desai, was examined at Exhibit-48. He produced the salary slip of December 2008 at Exhibit-38, the last pay certificate of the deceased at Exhibit-39, and the revised pay scale granted to the deceased   pursuant   to   the   6th   Pay   Commission,   which   was approved by the Local Fund Office, Ahmedabad. 10. The   main   contention   of   the   learned   advocate   for   the appellant was that the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission was C/FA/1359/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 extended subsequent to the date of the accident and, therefore, could not have been taken into consideration. It was submitted that the last salary of the deceased paid up to 23rd  November 2008 was Rs.12,036/- per month, as reflected in Exhibit-39. However,   it   has   emerged   from   the   record   that   the   6th  Pay Commission   was   implemented   with   retrospective   effect. Pursuant thereto, the revised salary of the deceased was initially fixed   at   Rs.15,460/-   per   month   and   thereafter   revised   to Rs.17,050/- per month, which was duly approved by the Local Fund Office. The arrears were also paid. 11. The learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that since the benefit of the 6th  Pay Commission was given with retrospective effect, the revised salary was required to be considered for the purpose   of   awarding   just   compensation. Consequently,   the contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant that the revised salary could not be taken into consideration is not acceptable. The learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.17,050/-. 12. So far as the defence regarding the permit is concerned, the claimant is a third party. Moreover, it has not been proved that, on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not covered under a valid insurance policy. The existence and coverage of the insurance   policy   are   not   in   dispute. Hence,   the   argument canvassed   by   the   learned   advocate   for   the   appellant   seeking exoneration of the Insurance Company is not acceptable. 13. Considering   the   aforesaid   facts,   the   learned   Tribunal C/FA/1359/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,04,600/- and added 15% towards future prospects, as the deceased was aged 53 years, in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, the prospective annual income of the deceased was rightly determined at Rs.2,35,290/-. The deduction of one-third towards personal and living expenses is also just and proper and does not   call   for   any   interference. Accordingly,   the   argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant on the issue of quantum is not accepted. 14. In view of the above,  the learned advocate for the appellant rightly submitted that, although the learned Tribunal awarded compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of estate,   consortium,   and   funeral   expenses   in   accordance   with Pranay Sethi (supra), it further awarded an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of “loss of love and affection”. As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra),   awarding compensation   under   the   additional   head   of   loss   of   love   and affection is impermissible. Therefore, to the aforesaid extent, the learned   Tribunal   has   committed   an   error. Consequently,   the appeal   partly   succeeds   and   is   accordingly   partly   allowed   by setting aside the award of Rs.1,00,000/- granted under the head of loss of love and affection. 15. For   the   reasons   recorded   above,   the   present   appeal   is hereby   partly   allowed. The   impugned   judgment   and   award C/FA/1359/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby reduced and modified from   Rs.19,23,460/–   to   Rs.18,23,460/-. Now   the   claimant   is entitled to get compensation of  Rs.18,23,460/-. The learned Tribunal is directed to refund the difference amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant-insurance company. The learned   Tribunal   thereafter   shall   disburse   the   reassessed compensation in favour of the original claimants through RTGS, after   proper   verification. The   bank   account   details   shall   be furnished by the learned advocate for the claimants to the Nazir Department of the learned Tribunal concerned. The Court fees, if any,  payable  by  the claimants  on compensation  be  deducted from   the   said   amount   and   the   remaining   amount   of compensation be disbursed in favour of the claimants on due verification within a period of two weeks thereafter. Record and proceedings,   if   any,   be   sent   back   to   the   concerned   Tribunal forthwith. Pending   civil   applications,   if   any,   also   shall   stand disposed of 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 17/12/2025 18:14:26