Gujarat High Court
Deva Pachan Rabari vs Driver Of Truck on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3555 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEVA PACHAN RABARI
Versus
DRIVER OF TRUCK & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 17.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Kutchh in MACP No.35 of 2000.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 01/05/1999, the applicant was driving Truck No. GJ-12-T-7033 from Gundiya (Maharashtra) towards Bhavnagar (Gujarat) in Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined the capacity of a driver and was driving the vehicle properly and cautiously. At that time, another truck bearing registration No. MP-23-DA-5469 was coming from the opposite direction, and its driver was driving in a rash and negligent manner, violating traffic rules. He lost control over the steering of his vehicle and came onto the wrong side, colliding with the appellant's truck. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries.
3. Vide the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present appellants - original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding the present appellants- original claimants entitled to an amount of Rs.48,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate costs.
4. This Court vide order dated 10.01.2014 noticing the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants and the grounds raised in the appeal, has admitted the appeal.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul S Shah, appearing for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment, has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding inadequate compensation to the claimants and has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective. It is contended that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the appellant as well Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined as period of actual loss of income, and has overlooked the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the assessment of future prospects, application of appropriate multiplier, and grant of compensation under the various heads such as PSS, Special diet and attendant charges and medical expenses. He has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan reported in 2018(0) AIJEL-SC 61861 and decision of this Court in First Appeal No.765 of 2007 with First Appeal No.195 of 2007 dated 05.11.2014 (Dhondiba Tukaram Donagare Vs. Shaikh Jakirbhai Sherbhai) on the issue of future prospect.
6. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager and unrealistic amount under various heads without considering the financial dependency of the family members and the socio-economic background of the appellant. The learned counsel has urged that the compensation awarded is not just, fair, and reasonable, and is liable to be enhanced in accordance with the settled legal principles. Learned counsel therefore prays for enhancement of the compensation amount by reassessing the same in accordance with law.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar appearing for the respondent no.3- Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal and vehemently argued that the compensation must be awarded as just, proper and reasonable and not Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined higher side and further submitted that learned Tribunal, after appreciating the materials available on record, awarded the compensation under each head is just, proper and reasonable and not required to interfere and lastly prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties on the disputes between the parties in narrow compass and perused impugned judgment and award, more particularly, the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while considering the issue of quantum of compensation.
9. As regards the income of the appellant is concerned, the appellant was working as a driver at the time of the accident. The tribunal has erred in assessing Rs.2000/- towards the income of the appellant. Considering the nature of work with which the appellant is associated, it would be just and proper to assess the income of the appellant Rs.3000/- per month.
10. The appellant has produced the disability certificate at exhibit 44, wherein the disability was assessed as 70%, however, both the parties consented to assess the disability at 20%. Hence, as the disability was assessed by consent, there is no dispute raised in that regard and 20% disability is required to be applied while calculating the compensation.
11. As regards future rise of income is concerned, the age of Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined the appellant, the injury sustained by him and that he was working as a driver at the time of the accident, which is a skilled profession is required to be taken in to consideration. From the evidence, the said injury has affected the future earning capacity of the appellant. Considering the nature of his work and injury sustained and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan (supra) and decision of this Court in the aforesaid case i.e., First Appeal No.765 of 2007 with First Appeal No.195 of 2007 and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 noticing the age of the deceased as 24 years, as accepted by the Tribunal by considering the evidence on record, 40% amount can be considered towards the future prospects of the deceased. Thus, the income would be (Rs.3000*40%=1200) Rs.4200/- after the calculation of the future rise.
12. Noticing the fact that the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the scheduled prescribed, the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16. The multiplier is required to be considered as 18 in the facts of the case. Thus, the future loss benefit is determined as Rs.4200/- *12*18*20% (Multiplier) which comes to Rs.1,81,440/-.
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:44 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
13. So far as the compensation under the other heads such as pain, shock and suffering and special diet, attendant charges and transportation are concerned, considering the facts of the case, nature of injuries, medical treatment and physical pain and the emotional trauma endured by the appellant, a substantial enhancement under the abovementioned heads are deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, Rs.25000/- towards Pain, Shock and Sufferings and Rs.15000/- towards Special Diet, Attendance Charges and Transportation are required to be given. The medical expenses of Rs.5000/- awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is required under that head.
14. As per the evidences placed on record, the tribunal has rightly arrived at a finding and assessed the contributory negligency of 50% of the both, appellant as well as respondent nos.4 and 5.
15. Therefore, original claimants - appellants herein are entitled to enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
Compensation As per award As awarded by this under challenge Court (Rs.) (Rs.) Actual salary/ 2000/- 3000/-
income
Prospective - 1200/- (40%)=
income Rs.4200/-
Disability 20% (Rs.400) 20% (Rs. 840)
Multiplier 16 18
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Future Loss 400/-*12*16 840/-*12*18
= Rs.76,800/- = Rs.1,81,440/-
Pain, Shock and Rs.25000/-
Rs.5000/-
Suffering
Actual Loss of Rs.6,000/-
Rs.4000/-
Income
Medical 5000/-
5000/-
Expenses
Special Diet, 6000/- 15000/-
Attendant
Charges and
Transportation
Total Rs.96800/- Rs.2,32,440/-
Compensation
Negligency 50% 48,400 1,16,220/-
Enhanced - Rs.1,16,220/- minus
compensation Rs.48,400/-
=Rs.67,820/-
16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award dated 17.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Kutchh in MACP No.35 of 2000 hereby modified. The appellants- original claimant are held entitled to compensation of an amount of Rs.1,16,220/-. Since by impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.48,400/-, the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.67,820/- (Rs.1,16,220-
- Rs.48,400/-) with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization. The respondents - original opponents no.4 and 5 are held jointly and severally liable to pay such enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:44 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
17. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited with the concerned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release and disburse the entire award amount in favour of the original claimant, after due verification as per the original judgment and award.
18. Let, such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal strictly in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard; preferably within a period of two weeks from deposit of such amount. The Tribunal is directed to realize the deficit Court fees before proceeding with the disbursement of the amount.
19. R&P be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if received.
(D. M. VYAS, J) Anuj Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:48:44 IST 2025