Gujarat High Court
Sanjivkumar Bhikhabhai Patel vs Safi Mohammad Ibrahim Vora on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1215 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SANJIVKUMAR BHIKHABHAI PATEL
Versus
SAFI MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM VORA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), 1st Fast Track Court at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.684 of 1997, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,49,500/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal is that on 29.01.1997, the original claimant/appellant herein along with his friend namely Kalpeshbhai was going to their house on scooter, when they were proceeding on the road parallel to the railway track between Mahemdabad and Ahmedabad, in the meantime, the respondent No.1 came with his matador bearing registration No.GJ-7-X-5938 in rash and negligent manner at an excessive speed so as to endanger the human life and hit the scooter. In the said accident, the appellant and his friend sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to the hospital where he remained admitted as an indoor patient for a long period. It is also the case of the appellant that at the time of accident the appellant was aged about the 23 year and he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month from the work of repairing the tractor, rickshaw and scooter etc. It is also the case of the appellant that the appellant was qualified mechanic as he completed his ITI and he was educated up to 12 th standard. It is also the case of the appellant, in the said accident, the appellant sustained the fracture in right leg and he has also sustained the Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined other injuries. Therefore, the appellant filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal for seeking the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. On being served with the notices of the claim petition, the respondent No.2- United India Insurance Company Limited filed the written statement at Exh-21 thereby denying all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The respondent No.4- Insurance Company had not filed any written statement.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh-26.
"1. Whether the applicant proves that the applicant sustained injuries owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent No.1 involved in the accident?
2. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation? If yes, from whom and what amount?
3. What order and award?"
5. In order to prove his claim, the appellant had led following oral as well as documentary evidences before the learned Tribunal:-
Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined Sr Particulars Exhibit No. 1. Certified copy of charge-sheet 57 2. Medical report dated 21.02.1997 58 3. Medical report dated 31.03.1997 59 4. X-ray dated 11.08.1997 60
5. Sonography and X-ray dated 61 09.11.1998 6. Certificate of conducting surgery 62 7. Injury certificate dated 09.03.1997 63
8. 23 bills for treatment, bills of 64 Rs.59,116/- for medical treatment 9. Marksheet of ITI 79 10. Certificate of Service 80 11. Driving license of appellant 81
12. Affidavit in examination-in-chief of 44 Doctor Yogesh Parikh 13. Copy of complaint 53 14. Panchnama of place of accident 54
15. R. C. Book of Matador bearing 55 registration No.Gj-7-X-5938
16. School Leaving Certificate of 49 appellant 17. Marksheet of SSC 50
18. Experience Certificate as a motor 82 mechanic 19. Copy of certificate of ITI 51 20. Bills of Rs.1,500/- 47
6. The respondents have not led any evidences in support of their defence.
Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
7. Having considered the material on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,49,500/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
8. The learned Tribunal has also apportioned the liability between the respondent no.2 and 4 in the ratio of 70:30.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant herein preferred the present appeal.
10. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
11. Mr. Mrudul M. Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of Rs.2,000/- per month ignoring the fact that the appellant is a qualified mechanic and he was educated up to ITI and 12 th standard. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the appellant was doing his own mechanic work by opening a garage and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. But all these facts were ignored and the Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined learned Tribunal determined the income at a very lower side at Rs.2,000/- per month. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 23 years old, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 (06) SCC 121. However, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount under the head of actual loss of income, special diet, attendant charges and transportation. He further submitted that though the appellant sustained the fracture in the right leg and right hand and the doctor certified that the appellant sustained the disability of 48%, however, the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.7,500/- under the head of pain, shock and sufferings. He further submitted that the reasonable amount is required to be awarded in all the heads of compensation, therefore, the award is required to be modified to that extent.
12. Though the Rule has been duly served upon the respondent No.1 and 2. Despite services neither the respondent Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined No.1 who is the driver cum owner of the vehicle nor the respondent No.2- United India Insurance Company Limited appeared before this Court.
13. Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4- Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. However, he very fairly submitted that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 in place of 18, therefore, the impugned judgment and award may be modified to that extent.
14. He further submitted that so far the compensation in other heads are concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded the reasonable amount of compensation in all the heads. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
15. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the records, it is not in dispute that the appellant herein is qualified mechanic as he has done course from ITI in motor mechanic. He is also educated up to 12th standard and at the time of accident he was Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined working as a mechanic on his own garage. The appellant had pleaded that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month but the appellant could not prove his income on record by leading the documentary evidence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal determined the income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/- per month. The accident had occurred in the year 1997, at that relevant point of time the Gujarat Government has notified the minimum wages for the skilled worker as Rs.1,300/- per month. The learned Tribunal has considered the income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/- per month, therefore, in my considered view in absence of proof of income, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in considering the income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal considered the functional disability of the appellant as 20% body as a whole. The said disability has not been disputed by the appellant. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 23 years old, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 but the learned Tribunal in place of 18, had applied the multiplier of 16. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head of future loss is required to be corrected and accordingly the appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.86,400/- (2000 x 20% x 12 x Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
18). The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- under the head of actual loss of income for the period of six moths. The compensation awarded under this head requires no consideration. The learned Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.61,000/- under the head of medical treatment. The appellant has produced the bills of Rs.61,000/- for the treatment, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.61,000/- under the head of medical treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of special diet, attendant charges and transportation. In my considered view, the compensation awarded under this head is at a very lower side, therefore, the same is required to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and accordingly, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head of special diet, attendant charges and transportation. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. It is on record that the appellant sustained the fracture injuries of right hand and right leg, therefore, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation at a very lower side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and having regard to the percentage of disability sustained by the appellant, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined under the head of pain, shock and suffering.
16. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the appellant shall be entitled for the following compensation under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future Loss of Income 86,400/-
Actual Loss of Income 12,000/-
Medical treatment 61,000/-
Transportation, Special Diet and Attendant 20,000/-
Charges
Pain, Shock and Suffering 25,000/-
Total 2,04,400/-
Less: compensation already awarded 1,49,500/-
Enhancement 54,900/-
17. The learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.1,49,500/-. Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled for the additional compensation of Rs.54,900/- i. e. (Rs.2,04,400/- - (less) Rs.1,49,500/-). Learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, therefore, the appellant shall also be entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% on the additional amount of compensation.
Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1215/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
18. The learned Tribunal has apportioned the liability of respondent No.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 and 4 in the ratio of 70:30. The same is not required to be interfered as not under challenge.
19. The respondent No.2 and respondent No.4-Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount of compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% within the period of 6 weeks from today.
20. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation along with the interest to the original claimants after due verification and after deducting the deficit court fee, if any.
21. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) CDP Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:51:12 IST 2025