Gujarat High Court
Aarifali Sherali Saiyed vs Yakubmohhamed Lunat on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1843 of 2015
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1844 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AARIFALI SHERALI SAIYED
Versus
YAKUBMOHHAMED LUNAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR C S SHUKLA(7549) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
ORDER in First Appeal No.1843 of 2015:
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and award passed in MACP No.191 of 2007 dated 24.05.2013 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vyara.
2. It appears that by way of the common impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has been pleased to award a sum Page 1 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined of Rs.4,08,240/- along with the simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum in MACP No.191 of 2007 and in respect of MACP NO.192 of 2007, the award amount is Rs.2,86,400/- along with the simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum. It may be noted that the MACP No.191 of 2001 is in respect of the injured claimant Mr.Aarifali Sherali Saiyed. Where, insofar as the heirs of the deceased Rameshbhai Rathod have preferred MACP No.192 of 2007.
3. The accident is of 30.05.2007. It appears that on the fateful day, at about 9:30 p.m., the applicant of MACP No.191 of 2007, together with one Mr.Rameshbhai Bhulabhai Rathod were travelling on motorcycle belonging to the claimant of MACP No.191 of 2001, bearing registration no.GJ-15-E-
5805. They were travelling on Surat-Dhulia Highway road. When they reached the outskirts of village Paniyari, an ST bus bearing registration no. GJ-18-Y-155, driven by the opponent no. 1 Mr.Yakubmohhamed Lunat, came in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed the said bus on to the motorcycle referred to hereinabove. As a result, the injured applicant in MACP No.191 of 2007 suffered injuries, however, the pillion rider Mr.Rameshbhai Page 2 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined Bhulabhai Rathod lost his life owing to the injury occurred in the aforesaid accident. Hence, the said claim petitions.
4. The present common judgment and award has been challenged only on the ground of quantum. It was submitted that negligence to the extent of 20% attributed to the claimant (driver of motorcycle) is also not challenged. It may be noted that again the income per se in respect of the MACP No. 191 of 2007 has not been disputed. However, what has been disputed that the Tribunal has not been pleased to award future prospects. Moreover, the amount under conventional heads were on the lower side and there was no thing awarded towards prosthetic leg.
5. At the outset, attention was drawn of this Court in respect of the functional disability of the injured applicant in MACP No.191 of 2007 (hereinafter "the injured applicant") had suffered. The attention was drawn of this Court to the fact that the Disability Certificate in respect of the said injured applicant was adduced on record at Exhibit-34.On perusal of the Disability Certificate, it was submitted that the said Disability Certificate clearly indicates disability of the injured applicant to the tune of more than 80%. It was Page 3 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined submitted that the said disability has transcended to the functional disability to the tune of 100%.
6. It was submitted that, apparently, the injured applicant was engaged in doing color work/paint jobs. As a result of the disability suffered by him, namely, owing to amputation of leg below knee and amputation of thumb of the right hand, the injured applicant is no longer in a position to continue with the said work. It was, therefore, urged that the disability of the injured applicant be considered at 100%.
7. It was next submitted that as such, owing to the fact that there was no evidence to substantiate the income of the injured applicant, more particularly, when in the pleading, the injured applicant has maintained that he was earning Rs.3,500/- per month, but, in his affidavit of examination- in-chief, he has asserted that he was earning income at the rate of Rs.4,000 to Rs.4,500/- per month. The learned advocate for the appellant fairly conceded that towards the said assertion in the affidavit of examination-in-chief, no evidence was adduced on record before the Tribunal. It was, therefore, submitted that as such, the income of Page 4 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined Rs.3,000/- per month for the injured applicant would be fair. He, however, submitted that to the said income, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% future prospects in light of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported at 2017 (16) SCC 680. He has also submitted that even in case of the judgment of Mohammad Sabeer Vs. Regional Manager, UP State Road Transportation Corporation Ltd. reported at 2023 ACJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that even if the future earnings of an individual have increased after the date of the accident, then too, it cannot be held that future prospects of such an applicant ought not to be granted. Relevant Paragraph-20 of the said judgment was relied on by the learned advocate for the appellant. It was thus urged that future prospects to the tune of 40% may be awarded in the present case.
8. It was next submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors. reported at 2020 ACJ 2695 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such a case, insofar as the other heads are concerned i.e., medical Page 5 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined expenses, compensation for pain and suffering, compensation for special diet and attendant, convenience charges, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, disfigurement and loss of income during treatment were correctly awarded by the High Court. Adducing the concerned judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi being the judgment in MAC.APP.520 of 2016 dated 13th September, 2018 authored by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Gaur, it was submitted that in the said case, the amount of pain and suffering was awarded to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. It was also submitted that the compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life was also awarded to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that in the said case, the injury was of 89% disability in relation to the right upper limb which had been amputated. Drawing an analogy to the facts of the present case, it was submitted that in the present case also, there was an amputation of leg of the present appellant, and therefore, the disability ought to be suitably awarded. It was submitted that in the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the person concerned was a businessman. However, Page 6 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined in the present case, the person is engaged in labor work, namely, that of doing color work. It was submitted that, however, the injuries were similar and hence the compensation in respect of the undergoing pain and that for loss of amenities ought to be on the same scale, and therefore, the said scale, as adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, may be adhered to. He, therefore, urged that under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life as also in respect of compensation for pain, shock and suffering, Rs.2,00,000/- each may kindly be awarded.
9. Insofar as the issue about prosthetic leg is concerned, reliance was placed in the case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra). There, relying on paragraph-23 of the said judgment, it was submitted by the learned advocate that in the said case, the age of the appellant was of 37 years and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had assumed that he would at least survive till 70 years, if not more. And thereafter, considering that at least three prosthetic limbs would be required in his lifetime for him to be maintained till he reaches the age of 70, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Page 7 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined Court was pleased to award a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- for purchase of three prosthetic limbs and for maintenance of the same, an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded. It was thus submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that in the circumstances, an aggregate sum of Rs.12,80,000/- ought to be awarded towards maintenance and purchase of prosthetic limbs. It was submitted that in the said case also, there was an amputation of right leg below knee. He, therefore, urged to this Court that appropriate sums under these heads may kindly be awarded.
10. The learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has submitted that as such, the Tribunal has taken into account every aspects pertaining to this accident, and therefore, the amount as awarded by the Tribunal being reasonable, need not be interfered with. He, therefore, urged that there is no cause for interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
11. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present matters in terms appearing hereinafter.
Page 8 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
12. Insofar as the First Appeal No.1843 of 2015 (MAC Petition No.191 of 2007) is concerned, the point of determination that arises in the present Appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the overall factors of the case, is just and fair? If not, whether it needs to be enhanced? And to what extent?
13. On perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is plain that the Tribunal has not considered prospective income. Awarding of prospective income has been settled by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) and has been reiterated from time to time, including that in the case of, case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra). At this juncture, Paragraph Nos.17 to 21 from the said judgment of Mohd. Sabeer (supra), under the head of future prospects, need to be quoted hereinbelow for the ease of reference:
"Future prospects:
17. The High Court has not applied the quantum for future prospects in the compensation granted. In its reasoning, the High Court has stated that the income tax returns relied upon by the appellant show that despite the injury the appellant's income had subsequently increased and hence it cannot be said that there is a loss of future Page 9 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined earnings.
18. It is a well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not only future loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that 'just compensation' must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place.
19. The accident that caused the injury took place on 12.6.2009. The acknowledgment of both the income tax returns produced by the appellant shows that tax returns were till 31.3.2008 and 31.3.2009. Both the income tax returns produced as proof of income were before the accident took place, and hence the High Court's finding that the income of the appellant has increased after the disability is incorrect.
20. It is also to be noted that even if the income of the appellant had increased after the accident, it would not be enough grounds to disable the appellant from claiming compensation for future prospects as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors.
21. In the light of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the applicable 40 pe cent addition of future prospects will be given as compensation to the appellant herein."
14. It is plain that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to reiterate that, even if income of the appellant had increased, that would not be a ground for not Page 10 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined awarding future prospects. However, in the present case, the Tribunal appears to have just skipped the aspect of granting future prospects. In the circumstances, relying on the judgment of Mohd. Sabeer (supra) and in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), future prospects need to be awarded. And age of the injured claimant thus assumes importance. Now, in the affidavit of examination-in-chief, the deponent has asserted that he was 39 years as on the date of the deposition. It may be noted that the deposition is of 12.09.2012. Since the accident is of 30.05.2007, therefore, as on the date of the accident, the applicant would be 35- 36 years of age, as the accident is of 5 th month and the deposition is of 9th month of 2012. Similarly, in Disability Certificate Exhibit 34, the age of the applicant is shown to be 36 years. The Disability Certificate is again dated 07.11.2007. It may be noted that the contention of the learned advocate is that by certain months of the accident, the applicant had completed 36 years, but at the time of the accident, he was only of 35 years of age. However, the record does not indicate the birth date of the injured applicant, and therefore, this Court is of the view that the age of the applicant can only be taken to be 36 years of age Page 11 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined and not 35 years. This is not withstanding that immediately after the accident on 04.06.2007, in the police statement, the applicant has stated his age to be 35 years. All in all, in absence of birth certificate and conflicting assertion of ages across the record, this Court is inclined only to take the age of the applicant as 36 years and not 35 years.
15. In the circumstances, in terms of the judgment in case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr. reported at 2009 (2) SCC (CRI) 1002, the applicable multiplier would be 15, which is correctly applied by the Tribunal. The relevant paragarph of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow for the ease of reference:
"15. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that Page 12 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
16. Insofar as the compensation under other heads is concerned, these facts squarely fall within the ratio in case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra). There, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking to the injury and the fact of amputation of the leg below knee, was pleased to award aggregate sum of Rs.12,80,000/-. In the said case, the injuries have been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-3(III), which reads as follows:
"3(III) As a result of this accident, the appellant and other passengers in the bus received grave injuries all over their bodies. The appellant was aged 37 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 10,000 per month. As per the Disability Certificate, the appellant suffered permanent disability of 70 per cent, his right lower limb amongst other injuries."
17. Again, at Paragraph-13 of the very judgment, i.e., Mohd. Sabeer (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to record as follows:
"13. The appellant has suffered amputation of the lower right limb, a fracture in the medial wall of the bilateral orbit, crush injury right leg, fracture tibia right leg, Page 13 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined exposed vessels and other injuries. As per the disability certificate, the appellant has suffered 70 per cent disability, however the High Court has held that the appellant has suffered only 35 per cent loss in future earnings due to the disability."
18. In the present case, it may be noted that there is an indoor treatment certificate issued, which is part of the record1. On perusal of the indoor treatment certificate, the following injuries and fractures (as revealed in the X-rays) are apparent:-
"Injuries:
Open type III6 fracture, M/3w tibia- fibula (R+) without N/v deficit with ipsilateral (sic) closed fracture lateral tibial condyle with open type-I fracture M/3 w - Llteral 1-3W clanide (sic) (R+) with crush injuries (R+) hand with doubtful tibial viability.
X-Rays:
Fracture M/3w tibia fibula(R+) Fracture lateral tibial condyle (R+) Fracture M/3w - Lat.1/3W clavicle (R+) Crush Injury (R+) hand"
19. Hence, it is clear that in the present case, the injuries to the applicant and the injuries suffered by the victim of the accident in case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra), are similar. Therefore, the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1 Page 121 of the R&P received from the Tribunal Page 14 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined respect of prosthetic limbs and the consequent award of compensation ought to be followed. And accordingly, as stated hereinabove, a sum of Rs. 12,80,000/- is awarded in respect of prosthetic limb.
20. In respect of functional disability, this Court is of the view that the functional disability suffered by the present appellant would be to the tune of 100%. It is admitted fact that the appellant was working as a laborer doing the work of paint jobs and that with amputation of one thumb and right leg below the knee, the ability of the appellant to work as such would be affected cent percent. In short, the functional disability would be of 100%.
21. Insofar as the award under the head of pain, shock and suffering is concerned, again, reliance is placed on the decision in case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra), wherein, as discussed in earlier portion of this judgment, the compensation for pain and suffering was awarded to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. As discussed, at the risk of repetition, the injuries in the case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra) and that of the present case is also similar. Similarly, the age of the applicant in that case was 37 years whereas in Page 15 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined the present case it is of 36 years. Accordingly, the compensation towards pain and suffering endured by the appellant would be to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Similarly, for the loss of amenities of life, again, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra) had awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, this Court is also inclined to follow the said judgment.
22. It may be noted that even in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to uphold a similar compensation which is apparent from reading of paragraph-23 of the said judgment, as the corresponding compensation, as demonstrated from the copy of Order passed in MAC.APP.520 of 2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, is found at paragraph-12 of the said judgment. The relevant paragraph from the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the ease of reference:
"12. In view of aforesaid, the compensation payable to Injured is reassessed as under:
1. Compensation for Medical ₹11,000/- expeneses
2. Compensation for pain & suffering ₹2,00,000/-
3. Compensation for special diet, ₹50,000/-
attendant & Conveyance charges Page 16 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
4. Loss of earning capacity ₹7,77,600/-
5. Compensation for loss of amenities ₹2,00,000/- and enjoyment of life
6. Compensation for disfigurement ₹1,50,000/-
7. Loss of income during treatment ₹48,000 Total ₹14,36,000/-"
23. Thus, the view of this Court in respect of awarding aforesaid sums under the heads of compensation for loss of amenities and compensation towards undergoing pain, shock and suffering would be Rs.2,00,000/-, each. Ultimately, as the final outcome, the following compensation is liable to be awarded to the present appellant:
Sr. Particulars Amount Amount
No. already enhanced by
awarded this Court
by the (in Rs.)
Tribunal
(in Rs.)
1 Monthly Income 3,000/- 3,000/-
2 Future prospects - 40%
3 Multiplier 14 15
4 Future Loss of Income 4,21,200/- 5,40,000/-
(3,000 X 12 X
15)
5 Pain, shock and suffering 50,000/- 2,00,000/-
6 Medical expenses 20,100/- 20,100/-
7 Special Diet and 10,000/- 50,000/-
Attendant Charges
Page 17 of 29
Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
8 Loss of amenities - 2,00,000/-
9 Monthly loss of income 9,000/- -
(as awarded by the
Tribunal)
Total 5,10,300/- 10,10,100/-
Enhanced amount by this 4,99,800/-
Court
Less: Negligence to the 99,960/-
extent of 20%
Enhanced amount by this Rs.3,99,840/-
Court
24. Since the negligence of the present appellant, as
determined by the Tribunal, is not disputed before this Court, therefore, to that extent, i.e., for 20%, amounts as awarded by this Court ought to be deducted. Accordingly, of the awarded amount, the amount of Rs.99,960/- is liable to be reduced and is reduced and the ultimate enhanced amount is to the tune of Rs. 3,99,840/- accordingly.
25. The enhanced amount would carry the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of with interest before the concerned Tribunal within a period of eight Page 18 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined weeks from the date of receipt of signed copy this judgment.
ORDER in First Appeal No.1844 of 2015:
26. This First Appeal is in respect of the fatality occurred in the accident, namely, the appellants being the heirs of the deceased Mr. Ramanbhai Rathod and the same is in narrow purpose.
27. It was submitted by the learned advocate that in the said case too, he is only challenging the quantum of compensation. It was submitted that the Tribunal has erred in the impugned judgment by not awarding future prospects to the extent of Rs.1,200/-. It was submitted by the learned advocate that as such, by adding the future prospects, the income of the deceased per month is liable to be considered as Rs.4,200/-.
28. It was thereafter conceded that considering the dependents being 5, 1/4th income will have to be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,200/- and resultantly, a sum of Rs.3,150/- would have to be considered towards monthly income of the deceased. It was submitted that for Page 19 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined arriving at the multiplicand, the said amount will have to be multiplied by 12, which would come to Rs.37,800/-. It was submitted that, again, the Tribunal has erroneously applied a multiplier of 14, whereas, as per the judgment in case of Sarla Verma (supra), the applicable multiplier would be of 15. It was submitted that so multiplied, a sum of Rs.5,67,000/- will be arrived at (Rs.37,800 X 15).
29. It was submitted that over and above the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has only awarded the amount under the head of loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
However, it is submitted that in terms of the authority in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the consortium at the rate of Rs.48,400/- will have to be awarded to each of the appellants. It was submitted that the first appellant is the widow of the deceased, the appellant nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased and the appellant no.5 is the mother of the deceased. It was submitted that all of the said dependents are entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.48,400/-. Hence, the aggregate amount under the head of loss of consortium would be arrived at Rs.2,42,000/-.
30. It was further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in Page 20 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, which according to the applicable case laws, would be Rs.18,150/-. Similarly, a meager sum of Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses, which too, would be to the tune of Rs.18,150/-. It was submitted that the aggregate of the aforesaid amounts under the aforesaid heads may kindly be awarded. It was further submitted that in terms of the judgment in case of Khenyei vs New India Assurnace Co.Ltd.& Ors reported at 2015 (9) SCC 273, in case of a person who is a pillion rider, no negligence would be attributed to him. It was, therefore, submitted that the applicable negligence in respect of the said deceased would be composite negligence, which would have no bearing on the compensation. It was submitted that, however, the Tribunal erroneously deducted a compensation to the extent of 20% from the awarded amount by the Tribunal on the ground of alleged negligence of 20% that too, of the driver (not of the deceased), towards commission of the accident. It was submitted that no deduction on that count would be required. It was, therefore, urged that the said compensation may be enhanced in the aforesaid terms. Page 21 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
31. The learned advocate for the respondent, however, has urged that as such enhancement of the compensation is not liable to be awarded in facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that even if such enhancement is awarded, it may be specified in terms of the judgment in the case of Khenyei (supra) that the ST Corporation is free to recover 20% of such sum of amount from the injured driver, who had contributed to the accident to the extent of 20%. He, therefore, urged that the said direction would be in terms of the judgment in the case of Khenyei (supra) and that such express direction may be issued permitting the ST Corporation to recover amount to aforesaid extent.
32. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present appeal in terms appearing hereinafter.
33. The points of determination that arise in the present case are as follows:
(A) Whether the Tribunal has erred in awarding appropriate compensation? And whether the compensation is liable to be enhanced in view of the Page 22 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined present facts and circumstances of the case? If so, to what extent?
(B) Whether there is a need for express direction of this Court to enable the respondent to recover amount from the other tort-feasors to the extent of 20%, although, in respect of the deceased, the negligence applicable would be that of composite negligence?
34. At the outset, it may be noted that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects, as has been mandated by Pranay Sethi (supra) and subsequently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. The age of the appellant is of 39 years, as is apparent from the recording of the present proceedings, namely, Exhibit-32, being the School Leaving Certificate. In the said document, the Date of Birth of the deceased is 25.07.1968. The date of accident is 30.05.2007. Hence, so calculated, the age of the deceased would be 38 years on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the future prospects would be to the tune of 40%, as the age of the deceased is below 40 years as on the date of the accident. Once, 40% enhancement towards Page 23 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined future prospects is allowed, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 3,000 plus Rs. 1,200/-, which is Rs.4,200/-.
35. Considering that the deceased had 5 dependents, namely, his mother, wife and three children, the expenses towards personal expenditure would be to the extent of 1/4th of the said income, which would be Rs.4,200/- divided by 4, which is Rs.1,050/-. Now, deducting the sum of Rs.1,050/- minus Rs.4,200, a sum arrived at is Rs.3,150/-.
36. Considering the amount of monthly income Rs.3,150/-, the multiplicand would be Rs.3,150/- multiplied by 12, which would be Rs. 37,800/-. Again, multiplying the multiplier in terms of the age, that multiplier would be 15, as per the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Unfortunately, the Tribunal had erroneously applied the multiplier of 14, which needs to be interfered, and hence the correct multiplier being awarded is that of 15 and, therefore, the loss of future income would be to the tune of Rs.5,67,000/-.
37. Furthermore, under the conventional heads, the Tribunal Page 24 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined has only awarded Rs. 10,000/- aggregate towards loss of consortium. However, considering that all the appellants herein are entitled to the compensation under the head of loss of consortium, the same would be Rs. 48,400/- multiplied by 5, which is Rs. 2,42,000/-. Adding thereto, a sum of Rs.18,150/-2 towards Loss of Estate (the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.10,000), and a sum of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses (the Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 2,000). The aggregate amount of compensation thus arrived at would be Rs.8,45,300/-.
38. It appears that the Tribunal has committed an error when it has deducted 20% towards the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. It may, however, be noted that the deceased was a pillion rider and insofar as the deceased is concerned, the negligence would be composite negligence and not contributory negligence. In the circumstances, no amount of compensation awarded to the heirs of the deceased is liable to be awarded Accordingly, no deduction on the count of negligence ought to be made in the present proceedings.
2 As per the judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as also Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported at AIRONLINE 2018 SC 189 Page 25 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
39. At this juncture, it may be noted that, however, the negligence apportioned between the vehicles would aid the respondents to recover such amount from each other, i.e., if the ST pays the 100% of compensation at the outset, it would be entitled to 20% of this amount from the other tort-feasors, i.e., the injured applicant. The same would be in consonance with the dictum laid down in Khenyei (supra), wherein it has been stated that once such negligence is apportioned, the need for fresh adjudication of negligence between the tort-feasors would not be required for the purpose of recovery by one of the joint tort- feasors who may have paid the entire amount in view of it being held liable, jointly and severally. However, even without such clarification, only on the strength of the judgment in the case of Khenyei (supra), more particularly, in view of Clause (iii) of operative portion of judgment in Khenyei (supra), the tort-feasor would recover the balanced amount from the other tort-feasors, provided that all the joint tort-feasors are impleaded and the negligence is approtioned by the Tribunal/Hon'ble Appellate Forms. This would be in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, even without such clarification, the Page 26 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined position remains the same and therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue express direction. It may be noted that issuance of such direction by this Court would mean that in cases where such direction is not issued, the tort- feasors, in appropriate cases cannot possibly initiate the recovery proceedings. Such is not the law of the land. Thus, this Court is not inclined to issue such direction, as indicated in the foregoing portion of this judgment.
40. In the circumstances, the total compensation liable to be awarded to the heirs of the deceased would be as follows.
Sr. Particulars Amount Amount
No awarded by determined by
. the Tribunal this Court
1 Monthly income 3,000/- 3,000/-
2 Future Prospects - 40%
3 Monthly income after - 4,200/-
future prospects
4 Personal expenses 1,000/- (1/3) 1,050/- (1/4)
5 Multiplier 14 15
6 Loss of Income 3,36,000/- 5,67,000/-
(3,150/- X 12
X 15)
7 Loss of consortium 10,000/- 2,42,000/-
(48,400 X 5)
8 Loss of Estate 10,000/- 18,150/-
9 Funeral Expenses 2,000/- 18,150/-
Page 27 of 29
Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
TOTAL 3,58,000/- 8,45,300/-
Enhanced Amount by Rs.4,87,300/-
this Court.
41. As may be noted, the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.4,87,300/- is liable to be paid by the respondents, jointly and severally. The enhanced amount would carry the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of with interest before the concerned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of signed copy this judgment.
42. Upon the amounts in both these appeals so being deposited within the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, without creating any further FDRs, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, after making apportionment, if required, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. No further FDR be created on enhanced amounts.
Page 28 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1843/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined
43. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
44. The R&P of both cases, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J) JIGAR J RABARI Page 29 of 29 Uploaded by MR.JIGAR JIVANBHAI RABARI(HCD0067) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:31 IST 2025