C/FA/3093/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3093 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Versus SUMIBEN KAMABHAI MANDOL & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR A R DWIVEDI(11319) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 10 MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 10 MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 11,8,9 SERVED BY PUBLICATION IN NEWS for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4,6,7 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 18/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.  This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment   and   award   dated   07.03.2022   passed   by   the   Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khambhat, Anand in Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.263 of 2020. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. 3. The   brief   facts   of   the   case   are   that   on   25.04.2015,   the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a tractor-trolley. When the tractor-trolley reached near the place of the accident, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing it to overturn. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. Page 1 of 7 C/FA/3093/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company, despite the fact that the deceased was travelling in the tractor-trolley   as   a   gratuitous   passenger   and   the   risk   of   a gratuitous passenger is not covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, it is submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider the evidence led by the Legal Officer at Exhibit 51, and that the testimony of the said witness was not challenged by the other Insurance Company. In view   of   the   admitted   position,   the   learned   advocate   for   the appellant has prayed that the present appeal be allowed and that the appellant – Insurance Company be exonerated from liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents has strongly opposed the appeal, contending that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is submitted that the evidence establishes that the deceased   was   travelling   in   the   trolley   as   a   labourer   for   the purpose of unloading goods, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening liability. However, the learned advocate for the claimants has further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to properly assess the income of the deceased   and   the   amounts   awarded   under   various   heads   of compensation, and that the compensation has been awarded on the lower side. Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation be p. 2 C/FA/3093/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 enhanced and that the present appeal be dismissed. 6. Having   heard   the   learned   advocates   for   the   respective parties   and   upon   perusal   of   the   Record   and   Proceedings,   it appears   that   the   present   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the Insurance   Company   mainly   on   the   ground   of   liability, contending   that   the   deceased   was   travelling   as   a   gratuitous passenger. The involvement of the vehicle and the factum of the accident are not in dispute. The liability is challenged solely on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the tractor-trolley as a gratuitous passenger. 7. On perusal of the record, it appears that the claimants have   produced   documentary   evidence   at   Exhibits   36   to   41, including the FIR, panchnama. From the affidavit produced at Exhibit 29, it is evident that negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is established. Opponent No. 1 did not step into the witness box to rebut the said evidence. It has also come on record that the deceased was travelling in the tractor- trolley as a labourer, and the tractor was loaded with compost. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The tractor slipped into a drain and overturned, resulting in the accident. 8. Since   the   deceased   was   travelling   in   the   trolley   as   a labourer, in view of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act,   the   risk   of   such   a   person   is   covered   under   the   policy. Therefore,   the   deceased   cannot   be   said   to   be   a   gratuitous passenger, and the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the p. 3 C/FA/3093/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 award. 9. So far as the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that the trolley was not covered under the policy is concerned,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   trolley   was attached to the tractor at the time of the accident. Once the trolley   is   attached   to   the   tractor,   both   together   constitute   a single   vehicle. In   this   regard,   reference   may   be   made   to   the decision in  Royal Sundaram v. Smt. Honnamma, AIR 2025 SC 2641. The   accident   occurred   due   to   the   tractor-trolley overturning. As per the definition of “motor vehicle” under the Act, it includes any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use   upon   roads   and   also   includes   a   trailer. Therefore,   the contention raised by the Insurance Company is without merit, and it is liable to pay the compensation. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered   opinion   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has   properly appreciated the evidence on record and has not committed any error   in   fastening   liability   upon   the   appellant   –   Insurance Company. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are just, legal and in accordance with the settled principles of law, warranting no   interference   by   this   Court. Accordingly,   the   appeal,   being devoid   of   merits,   stands   dismissed. However,   in   exercise   of powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under Section 168 of the MV. Act and to ensure that just and proper   compensation   is   awarded,   this   Court   deems   it appropriate   to   enhance   the   compensation   awarded   by   the learned Tribunal, for the reasons recorded herein-below. Page 4 of 7 C/FA/3093/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 11. It is true that no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been filed by the claimant; however, under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cross-objections may be considered on the basis of submissions, and filing of cross-objections is not always   necessary. In   this   regard,   reference   is   required   to   be made   to   the   decisions   of   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in Ravindrakumar Sharma v. State of Assam, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 435, and Saurav Jain and Another v. A.B.P. Design and Another, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 633, wherein the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   has   held   that   a   party   can   raise arguments against the findings in an appeal without having to file cross-objections. 12. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (Three Judges Bench) in Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16 SCC 467, wherein it has been observed that even in the absence of a cross-objection by the claimant, there is no bar to enhancing the awarded compensation. The Court should not adopt a hyper- technical   approach   and   must   ensure   that   just   and   proper compensation is awarded to the affected person or claimant. 13. Considering that the accident occurred in the year 2015, the   learned   Tribunal   ought   to   have   taken   into   account   the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time for determining just compensation, which were Rs. 7,240/- per month. Although the claimants have neither filed a cross-objection nor preferred an appeal for enhancement, it is well settled that the duty of the Court   is   to   award   just,   fair   and   reasonable   compensation p. 5 C/FA/3093/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 irrespective of such technicalities. In the considered view of this Court, the appropriate monthly income of the deceased deserves to   be   reassessed   at   Rs. 7,240/-   instead   of   Rs. 4,000/-   as determined by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has correctly added   40%   towards   future   prospects,   rightly   deducted   one- fourth towards personal and living expenses, properly applied the multiplier of 15, and appropriately awarded compensation under the conventional heads. Accordingly, only the aspect of monthly   income   requires   modification,   while   the   remaining findings of the Tribunal call for no interference. 14 Accordingly,   the   monthly   income   of   the   deceased   is reassessed at Rs. 7,240/- instead of Rs. 4,000/- as determined by the Tribunal. After adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income comes to Rs. 10,136/- (Rs. 7,240 + Rs. 2,896). After deducting one-fourth towards personal and living expenses, the net monthly dependency comes to Rs. 7,602/- (Rs. 10,136 – Rs. 2,534). Applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency is recalculated as Rs. 7,602 × 12 × 15 = Rs. 13,68,360/-. 15. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to  Rs. 13,68,360/- towards   loss   of   future   income. Upon   recalculating   the compensation under the conventional heads, the amount is as under: Sr. No. Nature of heads Amount 1 Future loss of income Rs.13,68,360/- 2 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- p. 6 C/FA/3093/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 3 Loss of consortium Rs.2,40,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.16,38,360/- 16. Therefore,   the   claimants   are   entitled   to   an   additional compensation of Rs.6,12,360/- (Rs.16,38,360 – Rs.10,26,000/-) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. 17. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal   is   modified   and   enhanced   to  Rs.16,38,360/-   from Rs.10,26,000/-. Appellant  – Insurance Company shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.6,12,360/- 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 order. Record and proceedings   be   remitted   back   to   the   concerned   Tribunal forthwith. 18. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 19. Award to be drawn accordingly. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI p. 7