Gujarat High Court
Mansaram Shyamlal Pal vs Jawaharsinh Pransinh on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2388/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2388 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MANSARAM SHYAMLAL PAL
Versus
JAWAHARSINH PRANSINH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE UNSERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Before adverting to decide the present appeal on merit, it is to be noted that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant herein/original claimants through his counsel Mr. Paresh M. Darji, who died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, the Court has issued the notice to the appellant. Despite several efforts of the Registry of this Court to get served the notice upon the appellant, the appellant could not be served, as he was not traceable on the given address mentioned in the memo of appeal. The accident took place in the year 2006.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2388/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
Though 20 years have elapsed, yet the appellant could not get the just compensation. In that eventuality, this Court requested Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel to appear on behalf of the appellant and to assist the Court. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel shown his willingness to assist the Court and accordingly, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant herein.
2. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 21.01.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Court No.14 Evening Court at Ahmedabad in MACP No.306/2007, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,83,400/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
3. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal are that 11.05.2006 at about 2:30 hours in the midnight, the appellant was travelling in a luxury bus bearing registration no.MP-3-F-0115 and coming to Ahmedabad. The driver of the luxury bus was driving the bus at excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner and when he was passing just near the Village Biholia, in the meantime, a truck bearing registration no.HR-38-K-7436 came from opposite direction in excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner, thereby endangering human life and dashed with the luxury bus. Due to the impact of the said accident, the appellant and other co-passengers sustained grievous bodily injuries including fracture injuries. Initially, the appellant was shifted to Guna Hospital and after receiving primary treatment, the appellant was referred to the Hospital of Dr. Prabhat Kaushal at Gwalior and where he Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2388/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined remained admitted as indoor patient and underwent surgery. It is also averred that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 45 years and was doing the work of marble polishing and thereby earning a sum of Rs.130 per day i.e. Rs.3,900/- per month.
4. Having been served the summons of the claim petition, the respondent no.2/insurance company filed the written statement at Exh.25 and thereby denying all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. It has been further stated that the accident has occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the luxury bus. The respondent no.4/insurance company of the luxury bus had also filed the written statement, thereby denying the contents of the claim petition and also submitted that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck.
5. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for determination are as under:-
(1) Whether it is proved that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of vehicles involved in the accident?
(2) Whether applicant is entitled to get compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom?
(3) What order and award?
6. Having considered the material on record, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,83,400/- as a compensation along with Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2388/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The learned Tribunal has also apportioned the liability in the ratio of 70:30 between the respondent nos.1 and 2 at one side and respondent nos.3 and 4 on the other side.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 21.01.2010, the appellant herein preferred the appeal on the point of quantum.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
9. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded the meagre amount of compensation under the heads of pain, shock and suffering, actual loss of income, medical expenses and special diet, transportation and attendant charges. He further submitted that the appellant sustained multiple fracture injuries and amputation of right leg below knee level. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- under the head of artificial limb. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Sabeer Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2023 ACJ 1. Relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award is required to be modified suitably and the compensation awarded to the appellant is required to be enhanced.
Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2388/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
10. On the other hand, Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/insurance company vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He fairly submitted that the respondent no.2/insurance company had also preferred the First Appeal No.1211/2010, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter the respondent no.2/insurance company preferred the application being Miscellaneous Civil Application (for restoration) No.1/2021 along with an application for condonation of delay which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2022, passed by the Coordinate Bench. He further submitted that the appeal for enhancement is not sustainable, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4/insurance company of the luxury bus vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, therefore the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
12. Having considered the submission of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that it is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the appellant was doing the work of polishing of marble and was aged about 45 years. It was pleaded that by doing the said work, he was earning Rs.3,900/- per month but he could not prove the income on record. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had determined the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month. The accident took place on 11.05.2006 and at the time of accident, the minimum wages for the skilled worker was Rs.2,500/- per month, Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2388/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has further enhanced the monthly notional income by 50% on account of the future prospects of the appellant. In view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in AIR (2009) 6 SC 3104 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the notional monthly income is to be enhanced by 25% on account of future prospects of the appellant as he was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. However, the learned Tribunal has enhanced the monthly income by 50%, which is not in accordance to the settled position of law. Therefore, the notional monthly income of Rs.3,000/- is enhanced by 25% on account of future prospective income of the appellant. Thus, after adding 25%, the monthly income would come to Rs.3,750/- i.e. (3,000+3,000X25%). It is on record that the learned Tribunal has considered the permanent disability at 35% body as a whole with the consent of the parties. Therefore, the functional disability of the appellant is taken as 35%. Therefore, the future loss of income would come to Rs.2,20,584/- i.e. (3,750X35%X12X14); however, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,02,400/-. It is settled preposition of law that the Court has to award the just compensation, it cannot be a bonanza or unjust enrichment to either party. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head of future economic loss is reduced to Rs.2,20,584/- from Rs.3,02,400/-.
13. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- under the heads of pain, shock and suffering, disfigurement, discomfort and deformity. It has been proved on record that the appellant has sustained Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2388/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined the fracture on right tibia and fibula and crush injuries on right leg. Resulting into traumatic amputation of right leg at knee level and later on he was operated for infection. He also sustained the fracture of pelvis, fracture of superior & inferior public-rami, disfigurement and deformation over right leg due to bad looking scar and amputation, restrictions of right hip joint movement and phantom sensation. Considering the amputation and the other fracture injuries, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation under this head is at very lower side, therefore, the same is to be enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.1,25,000/- in view of the ratio of judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra). The learned Tribunal has not awarded any separate compensation under the head of loss of amenities. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained the permanent disability and his right leg was amputated below the knee level. It is also on record that the appellant is not in a position to perform his routine work, as he was able to perform prior to the accident. Therefore, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of amenities.
14. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for artificial limb, though, it is on record that the right leg of the appellant was amputated below the knee level. Thus, considering the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra), a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded under the head of artificial limb.
15. The learned Tribunal has awarded the meagre amount of Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2388/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined Rs.18,000/- under the head of special diet, transportation and attendant charges. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, treatment taken by the appellant and the period of treatment, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded under this head is required to be enhanced from Rs.18,000/- to 50,000/-. So far as the compensation awarded under the heads of actual loss of income and medical expenses is concerned, the same is not required to be interfered and the compensation awarded under these heads are maintained. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the appellant shall be entitled for the following compensation under the following heads:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Future loss of income 2,20,584/-
2. Pain, shock and sufferings 2,00,000/-
3. Loss of amenities 2,00,000/-
4. Special diet, transportation and 50,000/-
attendant charges
5. Actual loss of income 18,000/-
6. Medical expenses 20,000/-
7. For Artificial Leg/Limb 5,00,000/-
Total 12,08,584/-
16. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,83,400/-, therefore, the said compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,08,584/-. Thus, the appellant shall be entitled for additional amount of compensation of Rs.7,25,184/- i.e. (12,08,584- 4,83,400). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The said rate of interest is not required to be interfered. Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2388/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
17. In view of the above discussions, the appeal stands allowed partly. The learned Tribunal has already decided the inter se liability of the insurance companies, the same is not required to be interfered and the insurance companies are directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order.
18. Upon depositing of the amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation to the claimants after due verification and after deducting the deficit of Court fee, if any. The statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. No order as to costs.
19. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:18 IST 2025