Gujarat High Court
Manishaben Shantilal vs Abdullatif Abdul Razzak on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4048/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4048 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
MANISHABEN SHANTILAL
Versus
ABDULLATIF ABDUL RAZZAK & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ADNAN KHAN FOR MR. SABIR B SAIYYAD(6322) for the Appellant(s) No.
1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Adnan Khan appearing on behalf of Mr. Sabir B. Saiyyad, learned advocate on record for the appellant. Learned advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak has entered her appearance on behalf of respondent no.3 - Insurance Company.
2. Rule issued by this Court, has remained unserved qua respondent nos.1 and 2. However, looking at the grounds raised in the Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 22:26:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4048/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined appeal, the appeal is taken up for final hearing in their absence.
3. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the instance of the original claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 20.10.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod at Limmkheda in M.A.C.P. No.547 of 2017 (Old M.A.C.P. 6190 of 2004 (Original M.A.C.P. No.1527 of 2003).
4. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present appellant- original claimant, holding the claimant entitled to recover compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its actual realization, with proportionate costs of the petition, jointly and severally to be realized from the original opponents.
5. Noticing the limited issue raised, this Court, vide order dated 13.10.2022, had admitted the appeal,
6. Learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in not considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 22:26:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4048/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in 2014 (14) SCC 396. While referring to the aforesaid decision, learned advocate has pointed out that it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of minor, where the disability is sustained due to the motor accident, which is above 10% and up to 30% to the body as a whole, then the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- ought to have been awarded. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.27,000/- by treating Rs.15,000/- as notional income per annum in case of the minor and the multiplier of 15 has been adopted, considering the disability of 12% body as a whole, has determined the future loss of income as Rs.27,000/-. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.1000/- towards the compensation under the head of medical expenses, pain, shock and suffering, transportation and attendant charges. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged this Court to enhance the amount of compensation, in light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and to award the interest on such amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization.
7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 - Insurance Company has objected to the aforesaid submissions, and Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 22:26:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4048/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined has contended that, for the findings and reasons assigned by the learned Judge, no error can be found in the impugned judgment and award. According to her, the Tribunal, in the facts of the case, has rightly determined the amount of compensation. She has, therefore, urged this Court to not entertain the present appeal.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun (supra), as rightly contended by the learned advocate for the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court of awarding the amount of compensation in case of minor, has held that, it would be difficult to accurately assess the amount of compensation in case of the children suffering disability on account of motor vehicle accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the relevant factors, precedents, and the approaches of various High Courts, has held that, in case if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% of body as a whole, then in case of minor, the amount of compensation can be considered as Rs.3,00,000/-. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case, which reads as under: Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 22:26:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4048/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined "12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs;
upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents."
9. Considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the facts of the case, indisputably the claimant is minor, and has sustained disability on account of the motor vehicle accident. The Medical Certificate ( Exh. 14) and Disability Certificate (Exh.25) have also been produced on record by the claimant and upon appreciation of the evidence of the claimant, in light of the aforesaid documents produced on record, the Tribunal has assessed the disability of the claimant at 12% body as a whole for the purpose of calculation of future economic loss.
10. Thus, the disability sustained by the minor is above 10% and less than 30% of body as a whole, and therefore, the amount of compensation is awarded as Rs.3,00,000/-, as held by the Hon'ble Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 22:26:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4048/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun (supra).
11. As regards the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant, awarding of interest is concerned, the appellant is held entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on such enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 20.10.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod at Limmkheda in M.A.C.P. No.547 of 2017 (Old M.A.C.P. 6190 of 2004 (Original M.A.C.P. No.1527 of 2003), is modified, by holding the claimant entitled to lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization.
13. The respondent no.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate cost and interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On deposit of the aforesaid enhanced amount by the respondent no.3-Insurance Company, the Tribunal is directed to Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 22:26:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4048/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined release and disburse the aforesaid amount in favour of the original claimant, subject to due verification, strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. While making the payment, learned Tribunal shall deduct the Court Fess, if not paid, in accordance with prevailing Rules. Let the aforesaid exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal within a period of two weeks from the date of deposit of the award amount.
14. With these observations, present First Appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith .
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 22:26:09 IST 2025