Gujarat High Court
Navabhai Ramjibhai Rabari vs Ruggaram Maharam Devasi on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NAVABHAI RAMJIBHAI RABARI
Versus
RUGGARAM MAHARAM DEVASI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 22.01.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Himmatnagar in MACP No.655/2009, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,87,550/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal are that on Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined 04.07.2009, the original claimant/appellant herein was travelling in luxury bus bearing registration no.RJ-22-PA-1183 from Sanderav, Rajasthan to Idar and when the said bus reached near Ambaji Road, in the meantime, the respondent no.1 herein drove the said bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the said bus with truck bearing registration no.RJ-5-GA-3830. In the said accident, the original claimant/appellant herein sustained grievous injuries and other three persons were also died. It is also the case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that in the said accident, the appellant sustained the crush and fracture injury on the right hand and during treatment, his right hand was amputated. At the time of accident, the claimant was gainfully engaged in the work of animal husbandry and agriculture and he was earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- per year from agricultural work and a sum of Rs.1,30,150.15/- from animal husbandry and thereby selling the milk to the dairy. It is also the case of the appellant/claimant that at the time of accident, he was aged about 52 years. Therefore, he filed the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-.
3. On being served with the summons of the claim petition, the respondent no.3/insurance company of the luxury bus filed the written statement at Exh.21, thereby denying the contents of the claim petition in toto and prayed for rejection of the claim petition, while the respondent no.6/insurance company of the truck filed the written statement at Exh.23 and denied the factum of negligence and income of the deceased-claimant and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.22:-
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined (1) Whether it is proved that the claimants sustained injuries on account of rashness and negligence in driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?
(2) What amount, if any, claimants are entitled by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?
(3) What order?
5. In order to prove his claim, the claimant had led the following oral as well as documentary evidences on record:-
Sr. No. Particular Exh. No.
1. Affidavit in examination-in-chief and cross- 38
examination of claimant/appellant
2. Affidavit and examination in chief of Kantibhai 60 Kalabhai Thakarda and cross-examination 3. Certified copy of Complaint 63
4. Injury certificate issued by Radhamohan Global 64 Hospital
5. Certificate of radiological examination conducted 65 by Radhamohan Global Hospital 6. RC book of luxury bus 66 7. Driving license of the truck driver 67 8. RC book of truck 68 9. Copy of charge-sheet 69 10. Copy of license of respondent no.1 70 Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
11. Discharge summary of Radhamohan Global Hospital 71 12 Manual form of Radhamohan Global Hospital 72
13. Blood report of claimant/appellant conducted by 73, 83 & 84 Radhamohan Global Hospital 14 Bill and receipt issued by Radhamohan Global 74 Hospital
15. Service bill issued by Radhamohan Global Hospital 75
16. Pathological report 76 to 82
17. GHIOP Medical Stores bill for medicine 85 to 93 18. Injury certificate 94 19. FIR 97 20. Offence detail form 98
21. Certificate issued by Savgadh Diary Milk Co- 101 operative Society
22. Certificate issued by Lalpur Gram Panchayat 102 23. Form 8-A 103
24. Form 7/12 104 to 107
6. The respondent no.3/insurance company has proved the copy of policy of luxury bus at Exh.110, while the respondent no.6 filed the pursis of compromise entered into between the respondent no.3/insurance company and the claimant in other claim petitions at Exhs.42 to 53 and copy of insurance policy of truck at Exh.96.
7. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,87,550/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The learned Tribunal further held that the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award; however, the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 i.e. the driver and owner of the truck and the insurance company of the truck were exonerated.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned judgment on the point of quantum.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
10. Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimant/appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence of income of the claimant on record and assessed the income of the claimant/appellant at Rs.5,000/- per month from all the sources of income. He further submitted that the claimant/appellant was gainfully engaged in the occupation of agriculture and animal husbandry; however, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of Rs.5,000/- per month from both source of income. He further submitted that in order to prove his income, the claimant has proved on the record the extract of Form 7/12 at Exhs.104 to 107 and Form 8-A at Exh.103 to prove that he was engaged in agricultural work at the time of accident. He further submitted that the claimant has also got examined the Secretary of the Dairy in order to prove that he was engaged in the animal rearing and selling the milk to the dairy and thereby earning a sum of Rs.1,30,150.15/- per year. He Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined further submitted that the learned Tribunal has ignored all these evidences and assessed the income of the original claimant/appellant at lower side. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed the reliance upon the judgment of Shivaleela Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2025 (0) AIGEL-SC 74915.
11. He further submitted though it is on record that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 52 years; however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the claimant. He further submitted that 10% of the income ought to have been added to the monthly notional income of the claimant on the account of future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that though the claimant has sustained the grievous injury of fracture and crush injury and resultantly, his right hand was amputated above the elbow; however, the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain, shock and sufferings. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed the reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 70212 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court rendered in the case of Khimaram Dhanaram Prajapati Vs. Jagdishkumar Prajapati, reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247380.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of transportation, special diet and attendant charges though, the learned Tribunal has observed that the appellant was hospitalized Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined and took the treatment for a long period of six months, therefore, the compensation awarded under this head is required to be enhanced. The learned Tribunal has awarded the meager amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head of future loss of income.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company of the luxury bus vehemently submitted that the income of the appellant was not proved on record, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month. He further submitted that the the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 11 as per age of the claimant. He further submitted that the the claimant has sustained the disability of 38% body as a whole, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the functional disability of the claimant as 30%. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed no error in awarding a sum of Rs.2,50,800/- under the head of future loss of income. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment has rightly awarded the compensation under the heads of pain, shock and sufferings, transportation, special diet and attendant charges and the actual loss of income. He submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
14. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the issue of negligence is not under dispute. The appellant/original claimant has challenged the award on the ground of quantum. In order to establish the agricultural income, the original claimant/appellant has led Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the documentary evidence at Exhs.104 to 107. Perusal of these documents transpires that these are the extract of Form 7/12. From these documents, it is evident that the father of the claimant is holding the agricultural land in his name, therefore, it can be presumed that the claimant would have been engaged in agricultural activities at the time of accident. So far as the income from the animal husbandry is concerned, it is on record that the annual income of the claimant by sale of milk at the time of accident was Rs.1,30,150.15/-. In order to establish the income from animal husbandry is concerned, the appellant examined the Secretary of the Dairy where he was selling the milk. The bills and receipts of payments have been proved on record at Mark 59/1. The Secretary of the Dairy i.e. PW-2-Kantibhai Kalabhai Thakarda also corroborated the version of the claimant/appellant. He also proved that during the year 2008-2009, the claimant had sold the milk of worth Rs.1,15,587.48/- in the dairy and for the year 2008-2009, he sold the milk worth Rs.1,30,150.15 paisa. The learned Tribunal having considered these evidences on record, came to the conclusion that out of the said amount, the claimant would have spent the some of the amount in the fodder of the cows and buffaloes. Therefore, the net income of the appellant/claimant would have been Rs.4,000/- per month after deducting the expenses.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaleela Vs. Divisional Manager (supra), considered the income from the agriculture at Rs.15,000/- per month. At this juncture, it is to be noted that in the said judgment, the claimant was holding a large parcel of land i.e. 9 acres and 23 cents, but the case on hand is that the land stands in the name of the father of the claimant and he was not having any agricultural land but obviously, he would have helping his father in agricultural work.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
Thus, having considered the material on the record, it would be just and proper if the income of the claimant from both sources is re-assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month and accordingly, I re-assess the income of the appellant at Rs.8,000/- per month.
16. It is on record that at the time of accident, the appellant/claimant was aged about 52 years, therefore, in view the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in AIR (2009) 6 SC 3104 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the notional income is further required to be enhanced by 10% on account of future prospects of the appellant/ claimant. Therefore, after adding 10% to the notional monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, the monthly notional income would come to Rs.8,800/- i.e. (8,000+8,000X10%) per month.
17. It is on record that appellant has proved the disability certificate at Exh.96. Perusal of the disability certificate transpires that the appellant/claimant sustained the crush injury on his right hand. Resultantly, his right hand was amputated above elbow; however, the learned Tribunal has considered the permanent functional disability of 30% for determining the future loss of income. Considering the nature of work of the claimant at the time of accident, in my considered view, the functional disability would not be less than 50%. Thus, considering the multiplier of 11 at the time of accident as the claimant was aged about 52 years and functional disability of 50%, the future loss of income would come to Rs.5,80,800/- i.e. (8,800X50%X12X11).
18. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the head of pain, shock and sufferings. It is undisputed fact that the claimant remained under treatment for a period of six months as he sustained the crush injury in right hand and his right hand above the elbow was amputated. Thus, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and having regard to the ratio of judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (supra) and the judgment of the Coordinate bench of this High Court rendered in case of Khimaram Dhanaram Prajapati (supra), it would be just and proper if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head of pain, shock and sufferings and hence accordingly, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of pain, shock sufferings is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.
18.1 The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.36,750/- under the head of medical expenses. Perusal of the record transpires that the claimant/appellant has proved the bills for medical treatment and expenses at Exhs.85 to 93. After considering the bill produced on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.36,750/-, therefore, no interference is required under this head.
19. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of transportation, special diet and attendant charges. It is on record that the claimant had sustained the grievous injuries and his right hand was amputated above the elbow and he remained hospitalized for a considerable period. Thus, having regard to the nature of injuries and period of treatment, it would be just and proper if the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded under this head is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head.
Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
20. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of actual loss of income. Considering the notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month, this Court has re-assessed the income at Rs.8,800/- per month, therefore, the claimant/appellant shall be entitled for a compensation under the head of actual loss of income for six months at the rate of Rs.8,800/- per month, which would come to Rs.52,800/- i.e. (8,800X6).
21. In view of the above discussions, the claimant shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following heads:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Future loss of income 5,80,800/-
2. Pain, shock and sufferings 1,00,000/-
3. Transportation, special diet and 50,000/-
attendant charges
4. Actual loss of income 52,800/-
5. Medical expenses 36,750/-
Total 8,20,350/-
22. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,87,550/-, therefore, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for additional amount of compensation of Rs.4,32,800/- i.e. (8,20,350-3,87,550). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Therefore, the claimant appellant shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 8% per annum on additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
23. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal stands allowed. The respondent no.3/insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest within six weeks Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined from today. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the original claimant after deducting deficit of Court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any, lying deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. No order as to costs.
24. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:37 IST 2025