Gujarat High Court
Ramanbhai Rupabhai Chauhan vs Nazirbeig Aazambeig Mirza on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3714/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3714 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAMANBHAI RUPABHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
NAZIRBEIG AAZAMBEIG MIRZA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 07.09.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), at Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No. 98 of 2003, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,41,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty One Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition until its realization, as compensation on account of the disability sustained by the appellant herein in the vehicular accident.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:27:11 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3714/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the instant appeal are summarized as under:-
i. On 26.12.2002, the appellant and his maternal aunt were travelling from Mehemdabad to Haldarvas Road on appellant's Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-7-AF- 9651. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 came by driving ST Bus bearing Registration No. GJ-18- V-1322, which is owned by respondent No.2 ST Corporation Ltd., at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, lost control over the steering of the ST bus and dashed with the front side of the appellant's motorcycle. In the said vehicular accident, the appellant herein sustained serious injuries and therefore, he preferred the Claim Petition seeking compensation to the tune Rs.8,00,000/-.
ii. It is also the case of the appellant/original claimant that at the time of the accident, he was serving as a clerk in a school, thereby earning Rs.8,421/- per month. It is also the case of the appellant that he was 45 years old at the time of the accident.
iii. Upon being served the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, respondent no. 2 - ST Corporation Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:27:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3714/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined Ltd., filed its Written Statement at Exh. 12, wherein it denied the contentions raised in the Claim Petition and in brief, prayed for the dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :-
i. Whether the applicant proves that he had sustained injury because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the Opponent No.1 driver of the vehicle involved in the accident ?
ii. Whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation ? If yes, what amount and from whom ?
iii. What order and award?
v. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidences on record and after considering the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,41,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty One Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition until its realization, as compensation. The learned Tribunal has further Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:27:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3714/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined deducted 10% of the awarded compensation on account of the negligence of the original claimant/appellant herein.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimant/appellant herein preferred the captioned appeal, thereby challenging the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of negligence, as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Shushil R Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/original claimant vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal had committed grave error in holding the appellant contributory negligent to the extent of 10%. He further submitted that considering the manner of occurrence of the accident, the respondent No.1-driver of ST bus was solely negligent for causing the accident. He further submitted that at the place of accident, the road was very narrow, however, the respondent No.1 driver of ST bus was driving the ST bus at an excessive speed and thereby caused the accident. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of Loss of Amenities. He Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:27:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3714/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation under the head of Pain, Shock and Sufferings. Therefore, the judgment and award is required to be modified to that extent.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Hina Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 ST Corporation Ltd., vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of negligence. She further submitted that the respondent No.1- driver of ST bus had stepped into the witness-box and he proved that the rider of the motorcycle (appellant herein) was also contributorily negligent in causing the accident. In support of her contentions, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 Corporation relied upon the panchnama of the place of accident, as well as the oral testimony of respondent No.1-driver of ST bus. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the rider of the motorcycle (appellant herein) negligent to the extend of 10%.
6. So far as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation under the head of Loss of Amenities, as the claimant/appellant was a government employee and he has not suffered any loss in the salary. She further contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:27:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3714/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined awarded Rs.25,000/- compensation under the head of Pain, Shock and Sufferings. Therefore, she contended that there is no merit in the present appeal and submitted that the same deserves to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it is to be noted that as revealed from the panchnama on record, the road on which the accident occurred was 12 feet wide. The motorcycle of the claimant was lying 2ft. away from the side of the road. It is the say of the original claimant/appellant herein that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the respondent No.1- driver of ST bus, owned by respondent No.2. The respondent no.1- driver had also stepped into the witness box and he shifted the entire fault for causing the accident on the rider of the motorcycle (appellant herein). Though the panchnama is not so clear on the aspect of negligence, but having regard to the fact and the manner of occurrence of accident and the oral testimony of the appellant as well as the respondent No.1
- driver of the ST bus, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the rider of the motorcycle (appellant) negligent to the extent of 10% in causing the accident. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of negligence is hereby upheld.
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:27:11 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3714/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined
8. So far as the quantum awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of Loss of Amenities on the ground that no financial loss was caused to the claimant/appellant herein as he was a government employee at the time of the accident. In the present case, the claimant has examined the doctor who had issued the disability certificate. As per the said Disability Certificate, the claimant/ appellant herein had sustained 44% disability to the body as a whole. In the deposition of the doctor, he has clearly pointed out that the claimant/appellant herein cannot lead the normal life as he was leading before the accident. He also stated that he has been suffering from so many disabilities and difficulties in his day to day life. Therefore, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal is not right in holding that the claimant/appellant herein is not entitled for any compensation under the head of Loss of Amenities. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head of Loss of Amenities.
9. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of Loss of Pain, Shock and Sufferings. Considering the nature of injuries, disability sustained by the applicant and a long period of 186 days medical treatment which the claimant has undergone, in my considered view, it would be just and proper if compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of Pain, Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:27:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3714/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined Shock and Sufferings is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of Medical Expenses and Special Diet, attendant and transportation are not under challenge, therefore, the compensation awarded under these heads are not required to be interfered with. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the appellant shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount
No. (in rupees.)
1. Loss of Amenities 1,00,000/-
2. Actual loss of Income (+) 20,000/-
3. Pain, shock and sufferings (+) 50,000/-
4. Medical Expenses (+) 86,000/-
5. Special diet, attendant and (+) 10,000/-
transportation
5. Total Compensation 2,66,000/-
6. Compensation awarded by
Impugned Judgment and (-) 1,41,000/-
Award dated 07.09.2013.
7. Enhanced amount of 1,25,000/-
compensation.
10. As held, the claimant/appellant herein is negligent to the extent of 10%, therefore, after deducting 10% from the enhanced amount of compensation, the claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,12,500/- (i.e., Rs.1,25,000 - Rs.12,500 (10% of Rs.1,25,000/-)). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The said rate of interest is maintained and therefore, the appellant herein is Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:27:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3714/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined entitled to the same rate of interest on the additional amount of compensation (Rs.1,12,500/-), from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
11. In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent and accordingly, the captioned appeal stands allowed partly.
12. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the Claim Petition till realization, within a period of six weeks from today with the learned Tribunal concerned. On depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the appellant/original claimant, after due verification, and after deducting Court fee, if any, as per Rules.
13. If any amount is lying deposited in the caption appeal with the Registry of this Court, the same may be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned. Records and Proceedings, if any, be sent to the concerned learned Tribunal. No order as to costs.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Nov 19 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 00:27:11 IST 2025