Gujarat High Court
Dipeshkumar Yogeshchandra Shah vs Haydarbhai Gulambhai Pathan on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/658/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 658 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
DIPESHKUMAR YOGESHCHANDRA SHAH
Versus
HAYDARBHAI GULAMBHAI PATHAN & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(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. 1,2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 21.07.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bharuch at Ankleshwar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.690 of 2013 (Old MAC Petition No.637 of 2010), the appellant - original claimant preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellant -
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:07:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/658/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined original Claimant and Mr. H. G. Mazmudar, learned Advocate for respondent - Insurance Company, whereas, the respondent nos.1 and 2 remained absent. However, the matter is taken up for hearing with consent. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellant - original claimant that on 12.05.2010, the appellant was driving his Travera Jeep bearing Reg. No.GJ-16-AJ-3131, when he reached near Ranipura Patia in Bharuch District, the respondent no.1 herein was driving Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-16-X-7840, at full speed in rash and negligent manner and due to the rashness driving of the respondent no.1 it was resulted into the accident. As a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries. A complaint was lodged with Jaghadiya Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the MV Act. Therefore, the appellant has filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The present appeal is filed on limited ground that future prospect is not awarded hence the appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass. Going through the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal it appears that the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month but has not considered future prospect due to which loss is suffered by the appellant. Further, the age group of the appellant is 50 years and disability is agreed to 35% but under the head of pain, shock and suffering awarded only Rs.25,000/- is very low amount.
5) The learned Tribunal has not awarded or considered the aspect of future prospect in view of National Insurance Company Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:07:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/658/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700. for which appellant is entitled to get compensation.
6) As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121], the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 14 without considering future prospect and awarded Rs.3,52,800/- under the head of future loss of amenities which is required to be enhanced in view of Pranay Sethi (supra), by 25%, therefore, the income would be (Rs.6000 x 25%=Rs.1500/-) Rs.7,500/- after the calculation of the future rise. Now total income under the head of future loss of income is required to be considered as Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 35% x 14 / 100 = Rs.4,41,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,52,800/- under the head of future loss of amenities, however, the same is required to be considered as Rs.4,41,000/-, therefore, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.88,200/- under the head of future loss of income.
Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering, however, considering the disability of the appellant i.e. 35%, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering.
7) As the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,72,500/-, and deducted 10% contributory negligence which comes to Rs.4,25,250/-, hence, as discussed above the appellant would be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,01,880/- (i.e. Rs.88,200 under the head of future loss of income plus Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and deducting 10% contributory negligence) with Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:07:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/658/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
8) The learned Tribunal has not committed any error in deducting contributory negligence of 10% and not disturbed other findings. So far the delay of 768 days caused in filing the present appeal is concerned, pursuant to the order dated 11.02.2025 of co- ordinate bench the appellant is not entitled to claim interest on the said enhanced amount for the period of 768 days.
9) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 21.07.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bharuch at Ankleshwar, in MAC Petition No.690 of 2013 (Old MAC Petition No.637 of 2010) stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.1,01,880/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
10) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
11) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:07:56 IST 2025