Gujarat High Court
Maheshbhai Gangaram Patel vs Shaileshkumar Narsibhai Driver Of ... on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 71 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 73 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MAHESHBHAI GANGARAM PATEL
Versus
SHAILESHKUMAR NARSIBHAI DRIVER OF METADOR NO GJ-3-U- & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeals are preferred against the common impugned judgment and award dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux- II.) at Mahesana in M.A.C.P. No. 2075 of 2000 & M.A.C.P. No. 99 of 2004, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petitions, and awarded a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- & Rs.35,600/- respectively, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petitions till its realization, as compensation.
Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeals are summarized as under:-
i. On 06.09.1998, both the claimants/appellants herein, who are relatives, along with other family members, were proceeding on foot towards Ambaji to attend the Holy Day of Bhadarvi Punam. At about 04:30 a.m., while they were walking along the Visnagar-Kheralu Road near Sundhiya and the signboard of Village Bajpur, opponent No.1/respondent No.1 herein, came by driving a Matador bearing registration No. GJ-3U-6852 owned by opponent No.2/respondent No.2 herein, from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, and dashed with the claimants/appellants herein. As a result of the said vehicular accident, both the claimants/appellants and other persons sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimants/appellants herein preferred Claim Petitions before the learned Tribunal for seeking compensation.
ii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petitions, Original opponent No.3/respondent No.3 herein - Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed its Written Statement, thereby denying the factum of age, Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined income, injury, and disability sustained by the claimants/appellants herein and in brief, respondent No.3 - Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petitions.
iii. Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether it is proved that each claimant sustained injuries on account of rashness and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicles involved in the accident. ?
2. What amount, if any, each claimant is entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents ?
3. What order and award ?
iv. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petitions vide common judgment and award dated 31.08.2010 and awarded a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- & Rs.35,600/- respectively, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petitions till its realization, as compensation.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined impugned judgment and award, the claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 2075 of 2000 preferred First Appeal No. 71 of 2011, while the claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 99 of 2004 preferred the First Appeal No. 73 of 2011. By way of the Captioned appeals, the original claimants/appellants herein have challenged the impugned judgment and award on the point of quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Submissions in First Appeal No. 71 of 2011
4. Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted that at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 20 years and 2.5 months, and was studying in the final year of B.A., and was doing business under the name and style of Raghuvir Timber Company, thereby earning a handsome amount of income. However, the learned Tribunal had considered the notional income of the claimant/appellant herein as Rs.15,000/- per annum. He further submitted that though the partnership deed was proved at Exh.91, the claimant/appellant herein could not prove his income by leading any documentary evidence on record. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident to determine the income of the claimant/appellant Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined herein. He further submitted that as per the notification released by the State Government of Gujarat, the minimum wages for a skilled worker at the time of accident was Rs.1,700/- per month. He further contended that the learned Tribunal had not considered the future prospects of the claimant, as such, 40% of the monthly notional income is required to be added on account of the future prospects of the claimant/appellant herein. He further submitted that in the vehicular accident, the claimant/appellant herein had sustained serious injuries and resultantly, his body below the waist was paralyzed. He further submitted that it is a case of complete paraplegia below waist, and as per the Disability Certificate issued by Dr. Prabodh M. Desai, the disability of the claimant/appellant herein was assessed at 100% body as a whole. He further submitted that though the claimant/appellant herein was aged about 20 years and 2.5 months at the time of the accident, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of "15" for calculating the Future loss of income in total disregard to the ratio of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. He further contended that the learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Pain, shock & suffering though the claimant/appellant herein became totally disabled owing to the injuries sustained in the accident. He further submitted that in case of paraplegia, the Division Bench of this High Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Court in the case of Bhavik @ Bhavin Dwarkadas Vithlani v. Ganapatsinh Manubha Jadeja reported in 2021(O) AIJEL-GJ- 243099 awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under the head of Pain, shock & suffering. He further submitted that considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- is prayed to be awarded under the head of Pain, shock & suffering. He further submitted that the claimant/appellant herein has become totally disabled as he sustained complete paraplegia below the waist, therefore, he requires an attendant permanently, therefore, a sum of Rs.3,67,200/- may be awarded under the head of Attendant charges. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant herein placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Jithendran v. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 620.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant herein further submitted that the learned Tribunal had not awarded any amount under the head of Loss of amenities and loss of prospects of Marriage. He further submitted that at the time of the accident, the claimant/appellant herein was not married and was aged about 20 years and 2.5 months, therefore, his chance of getting married has become bleak. Therefore, prayed that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- be awarded under the head of Loss of amenities and loss of prospects of marriage by placing relying upon the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Bhavik @ Bhavin Dwarkadas Vithlani (supra). He further submitted that the doctor has clearly deposed before the learned Tribunal that the claimant/appellant herein shall require chair for the rest of his life, however, the learned learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of Future medical aid. Therefore, a reasonable amount may be awarded under the head of Future medical expenses. He contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be enhanced and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
6. On the other hand, Mr. H. G. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company herein vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation under all the heads, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, therefore, contended that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Submissions in First Appeal No. 73 of 2011
7. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant herein submitted that the claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and he was gainfully engaged as a primary school teacher, thereby earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as salary. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal ignored the Salary Certificate and considered the Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3,500/- per month. He further submitted that though the claimant/appellant herein had sustained the permanent disability of 15%, the learned Tribunal had considered the permanent disability of the claimant as 6% body as a whole. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation under the head of Actual loss of income, Pain, shock & suffering, Future Medical expenses and Transportation, Attendance and Special diet. He further submitted that considering the totality of facts and circumstances, a lumpsum amount of Rs.75,000/- is required to be awarded under all the heads of compensation.
8. On the other hand, Mr. H. G. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company herein vehemently submitted that considering the occupation, age and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant/appellant herein, a lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/- may be awarded under all the heads of compensation.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to be noted that the issue of negligence has not been challenged. The original claimants/appellants herein have challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Compensation in First Appeal No. 71 of 2011
10. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the original claimant was aged about 20 years and 2.5 months and was engaged in the business of timber under the name and style of Raghuvir Timber Company. The partnership deed was proved at Exh.91. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the accident, he was a final year student of B.A. However, the learned Tribunal considered the notional income of the claimant/appellant herein at Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is also on record that the income of the claimant was not proved on record, therefore, in the absence of evidence of income, the learned Tribunal could have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident as the income of the claimant. At the time of accident, the State Government of Gujarat has notified the minimum wages for a skilled worker as Rs.1,700/- per month, therefore, the income of the original claimant/appellant herein is reassessed as Rs.1,700/- per month.
11. Further, the claimant was aged about 20 years and 2.5 months at the time of the accident, however, no increase in income was given on account of the future prospects of the claimant/appellant herein. Thus, considering the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Sarla Verma (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra) and Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2022 SCC Online SC 1701], 40% of the monthly income is added to the income of Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined the claimant/appellant herein on account of the future prospects. As such, the monthly income of the claimant/appellant herein would come to the tune of Rs.2,380/- (i.e. Rs.1,700/- + 40% of Rs.1,700/-) per month.
12. While calculating the future loss of income, the learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of "15" in total disregard to the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Considering the age of the claimant/appellant herein at the time of the accident, the Tribunal could have applied the multiplier of "18", thus, after applying the multiplier of "18" as per age of the claimant/appellant herein, the Future loss of income would to Rs. 5,14,080/- (i.e., Rs.2,380/- X 12 X multiplier of "18").
13. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- under the head of Medical expenses. The same was awarded by the learned Tribunal after considering the medical bills produced on record, therefore, no interference is required under this head. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of Medical Expenses is maintained.
14. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Pain Shock and Sufferings. It is on record that the claimant/appellant herein sustained the injuries of complete paraplegia below the waist and he became permanently disabled and his disability was assessed by the learned Tribunal at 100% body as a whole. In the case Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined of Bhavik @ Bhavin Dwarkadas Vithlani (supra), the Division Bench of this High Court had awarded Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation in case of paraplegia. In the said case of Bhavik @ Bhavin Dwarkadas Vithlani (supra), the claimant was in vegetative state, but in the case on hand, the claimant/appellant is not in a vegetative state. Thus, considering the ratio of the judgment, it would be just and proper if a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded under the head of Pain, shock & suffering and accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded under the head of Pain Shock & Suffering.
15. Though it is a case of paraplegia, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of Attendant Charges. The Attendant is required on a daily basis as the claimant/appellant cannot stand, work freely or complete his daily chores and requires the help of an attendant. Therefore, it would be just and proper if the Attendant charges is awarded considering the minimum wages for a semi-skilled worker at the time of the accident, which was Rs.1,600/- per month as per the notification released by the State Government of Gujarat at the relevant point of time. Thus, a sum of Rs.3,45,600/- (i.e., 1,600/- X 12 X multiplier of "18") is awarded under the head of Attendant Charges.
16. It is on record that at the time of the accident, the claimant/appellant here in was a young boy aged about 20 years and 2.5 months and was not married. However, the Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of Loss of amenities and loss of prospects of marriage. Considering the nature of disability sustained by the claimant/appellant herein, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded under the head of Loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects.
17. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Transportation and Special Diet. The amount awarded under this head requires no interference and accordingly, the same is upheld.
18. Though the doctor has deposed before the learned Tribunal that the claimant/appellant herein would require a chair for his lifetime, yet the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of future medical aid. Thus, considering the evidence on record and having regard to the disability sustained by the claimant/appellant herein, it would be just and proper, if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of Future medical Expenses.
19. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for the compensation under the following heads:-
Sr. Head Amount in rupees.
No.
1 Future Loss of income. 5,14,080/-
2 Medical Expenses. (+) 60,000/-
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
3 Pain, shock & sufferings. (+) 5,00,000/-
4 Transportation & Special Diet. (+) 50,000/-
5 Attendant Charges. (+) 3,45,600/-
6 Loss of amenities and future (+) 4,00,000/-
prospects of Marriage.
7 Future Medical Expenses (+) 50,000/-
8 Total Compensation 19,19,680/-
20. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and award awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,95,000/-. Therefore, the original claimant shall be entitled for an additional compensation to the tune of Rs.15,24,680/- (Rs.19,19,680/- minus Rs.3,95,000/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. The said rate of interest is maintained; accordingly, the original claimant herein shall be entitled to 7.5% of interest per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
Compensation in First Appeal No. 73 of 2011
21. It is on record that the claimant/appellant herein at the time of accident, was aged about 35 years and was gainfully engaged as a primary school teacher, earning a salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. He sustained the disability to the extent of 15% body as a whole. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.35,600/- as compensation. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parities that a lumpsum amount may be awarded as compensation.
Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the sum of Rs.35,600/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.35,600/- to Rs.50,000/-.
22. The learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and award awarded a total compensation of Rs.35,600/-. Therefore, the original claimant shall be entitled for an additional compensation to the tune of Rs.14,400/- (Rs.50,000/- minus Rs.35,600/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. The said rate of interest is maintained; accordingly, the original claimant/appellant herein herein shall be entitled to 7.5% of interest per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
23. In view of the above discussion, both the captioned appeals stands allowed partly and the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent.
24. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount of compensation in both the captioned appeals, along with interest within a period of six weeks from today. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the original claimants/appellants (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/71/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
25. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings if any, be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
26. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:38:09 IST 2025