Gujarat High Court
Nitaben Vasantbhai Gajjar vs Ishwarbhai Virabhai Sabad Rabari on 31 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/987/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 987 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NITABEN VASANTBHAI GAJJAR
Versus
ISHWARBHAI VIRABHAI SABAD RABARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAYUR S BAROT(1637) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 31/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimant 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 26.09.2017 passed by the Motor Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/987/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar in MACP No.190 of 2014.
2. Vide the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present appellant - original claimant under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding the present appellant- original claimant entitled to an amount of Rs.58,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate costs. Thus, the Tribunal has not entertained the claim petition for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as total compensation.
3. This Court vide order dated 05.04.2018 noticing the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant- original claimant and the grounds raised in the appeal, has admitted the appeal.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mayur Barot, appearing for the appellant- original claimant has assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal mainly on Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/987/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined the issue of quantum of compensation. It was submitted that the tribunal erred in assuming the consent of both the parties in assessing the total disability as 9%. It was contended that the said 9% disability is required to be rejected as the appellant has neither given oral nor written consent and the disability certificate given by the doctor at exhibit 39, who had assessed the disability as 28.5%, should have been considered by the tribunal for calculation of the compensation.
5. Further, the learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently argued on the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and submitted that the tribunal must consider the expert evidence. It is further submitted that the tribunal must consider Doctor Yogendra Solanki as an expert, assessed the 28.5% disability of the claimant. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Through CBI/New Delhi) Vs. S.J. Choudhary reported in 1996 Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/987/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined SCC (2) 428 and lastly prayed to enhance the compensation amount to Rs.1,39,910/- by considering the disability above submissions.
6. Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the respondent no.3/insurance company submitted that the appellant cannot now raise any grievance with regard to the permanent disability assessed since 9% disability was agreed upon by both the side. He 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 on higher side and further submitted that the 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 present appeal.
7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties the disputes between the parties in narrow compass and Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/987/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined perused the record and proceedings and impugned judgment and award, more particularly, the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while considering the issue of quantum of compensation.
8. So far as the assessment of disability is concerned, the tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 9% considering the disability certificate at exhibit 39. The appellant raised the contention that the appellant has neither given oral nor written consent to assess the disability as 9% as against the disability assessed by the Doctor Yogendra Solanki as 28.5% and more particularly, the tribunal assessed the disability with consent as 9% body as a whole. The said contention is unsustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be rejected and the findings of the tribunal in assessing the disability is just and proper.
9. Learned Advocate for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Through CBI/New Delhi) (supra). The Hon'ble Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/987/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined Supreme Court held as under:
"The opinion of the typewriter expert in the present case is admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act."
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the medical expert Dr. Yogendra Solanki issued disability certificate vide exhibit 39 and assessed the disability of the appellant body as a whole 28.5%. It is an undisputed fact that the opinion of the doctor is expert opinion, both the parties consented the disability body as a whole 9% and the tribunal considered the disability certificate as an expert opinion. Under the circumstances, the reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the appellant is already considered as an expert opinion and thereafter, on consent of parties, assessed the disability of the appellant accordingly.
11. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:38:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/987/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined Rs.3,000/- per month, is not just and proper. He vehemently argued that the income should be calculated as per the minimum wages Act. He further submitted that the tribunal committed the error while assessing the income of the claimant and lastly prayed to assess the income of the claimant as per the Minimum Wages Act.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the subject matter, the appellant/claimant stated in her claim petition that her monthly income is Rs.3000/- per month and in oral evidence, she stated that her monthly income is Rs.4,000/- per month. Undisputedly, the appellant/claimant has not produced any income proof. The learned Tribunal calculated her income Rs.3,000/- per month as per her claim petition. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in calculation of the income of the appellant/claimant. The contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant is not sustainable.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:38:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/987/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined
13. The compensation of Rs.58,500/- awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required with the findings recorded by the tribunal while compensating the claim amount.
14. Recording the above, the present appeal preferred by the appellant/original claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act deserves to be rejected confirming the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Surendranagar passed in MACP No.190 of 2014 dated 26.09.2017. Accordingly the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
15. R&P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(D. M. VYAS, J) Anuj Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR.ANUJSINH CHANDRAVIRSINH SISODIYA(HCD0069) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:38:28 IST 2025