Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller vs Viralbhai Mangalbhai Gandhi on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 605 of 2013
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 105 of 2014
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 605 of 2013
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Versus
VIRALBHAI MANGALBHAI GANDHI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHUSHIL SHUKLA, for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The captioned appeal and cross-objections are preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 02.12.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No. 351 of 2007, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs7,82,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, as compensation.
2. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the captioned appeal are summarized as under :-
Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined i. On 30.01.2007, at about 08:30 hours, original claimant-respondent No.1 herein-Viral Mangalbhai Gandhi was proceeding to attend his classes on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-7-AF-4150. Upon reaching Balasinor-Virpur Road, near the Milk Collection Centre, opponent no.1- respondent No.2 herein-the driver of a bus bearing Registration No. GJ-18-V-3905 drove the said bus from the wrong side of the road at an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner, thereby endangering human life. As a result, the bus forcefully collided with the motorcycle of the applicant - opponent No.1 herein, causing him to sustain grievous injuries and multiple fractures.
ii. It is the case of the claimant that at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 15 years and he was studying in 10 th standard. In the said accident, the claimant sustained multiple fractures and resultantantly, his both the legs were paralyzed and he remained hospitalized for a long period.
iii. Based on the said averments, the claimant preferred claim Petition before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined iv. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, opponent no. 2- S.T.Corporation filed Exh.14 - Written Statement, thereby, denying all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
v. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.16, for determination.
i. Whether the applicant proves that he had sustained injuries because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the 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 award and order?
vi. In order to prove the claim, the claimant herein led oral as well as documentary evidence, which reads as under:-
Sr. Description of Documents Exhibit No. No. 1 Affidavit of claimant in 30 Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined examination-in-chief 2 Affidavit of Dr.Yogeshbhai T. 35 Parikh in examination-in-chief 3 School Leaving Certificate of 23 the claimant 4 Certificate of disability of the 36 claimant 5 Copy of F.I.R. 39 6 Copy of panchnama of place of 40 incident 7 Copy of X-ray Report 41 8 X-ray report and Brain report of 42 the claimant 9 MRI Report of the claimant 43 10. Report of X-ray of chest of the 44 claimant 11. Report of Chest and Spine 45 12. School Leaving Certificate of the 46 Claimant 13. 10th Standard Mark-sheet of the 47 claimant 14. 12th Standard mark-sheet of the 48 claimant 15. Letter written by the father of the 50 claimant to the Principal of Karuna Niketan High School 16. Bills of Pills 51 17. Injury Certificate of Claimant 52 issued by M.G.Hospital, Balashinor 18. Injury Certificate of the claimant 53 vii. The opponent no.2-S.T.Transporation led the oral evidence of driver of the S.T.Bus at Exh.55.
viii. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and having Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal held the opponent no.1 negligent for causing the accident. So far the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,82,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum as compensation to the claimant.
ix. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award, the appellant- S.T.Corporation preferred the present appeal challenging the issue of negligence while the original claimant preferred the Cross-Objections in the captioned appeal for enhancement of compensation.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Ms.Hina Desai, learned advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the respondent no.2-driver of the appellant-Insurance Company was responsible for causing the accident. She further submitted that the complaint was made by the respondent no.1-claimant himself and on the basis of the complaint, no charge-sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Officer. She further submitted that the respondent no.2, who was driver of the S.T.Bus, at the relevant time, stepped into the witness box Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined and filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief and he was also cross-examined. In his deposition, he proved that the accident has occurred owing to the sole negligence on the part of the rider of the motor-cycle/victim. She further submitted that the panchnama of place of accident also supports the version of the appellant. She further submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 15 years and he was not holding the driving license. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in holding that the driver of the appellant was responsible for causing the accident. She further submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was the student of 10 th standard and he was not earning. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation. Hence, the same is required to be reduced.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Shushil Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of objector vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the issue of negligence. He placed reliance on panchnama of place of accident and submitted that the bus was found on the wrong side of the road. He further submitted that the driver of the appellant came in rash and negligent manner by driving the bus under his control and hit the motor-cycle, wherein the original claimant sustained serious injuries and multiple fractures and his dorsal cord was fractured and he sustained the paraplegia of both lower limbs with sensation below D5 absent with loss of bowel & bladder control. He further Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined submitted that having license or no license is totally irrelevant in deciding the issue of negligence. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of negligence. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is required to be upheld.
6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of objector submitted that so far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has lost the sight that the claimant suffered paraplegia on account of the accident, wherein he sustained multiple fracture injuries and he virtually became bed ridden and not able to live the normal life, but all these factors were ignored by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has awarded the megre amount of compensation. He further submitted that it is on record that at the time of accident, the claimant was a student of 10 th standard, aged about 15 years. However, the learned Tribunal had determined the income of the claimant at Rs.15000/- per-annum. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also not considered the enhancement of income by 40% on account of future prospective income of the claimant. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded the meager amount of Rs.1 lac under the head of pain, shock and suffering and a meager amount of Rs.75,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of marriage prospects. He further submitted that no compensation was awarded for future medical expenses. In Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Riyaz Vs. P.N.Sinosh reported in 2025 (0) INSC 1303.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 15 years and he was the student of 10 th standard. It is also not in dispute that the claimant sustained multiple injuries in the said vehicular accident. Now, so far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of the S.T.Bus was responsible for causing the accident.
8. It is on record that the claimant as well as the driver of the S.T.Bus have filed their respective affidavits in examination-in-chief and they were also cross-examined by respective opposite parties. It is also on record that the complaint was made by the driver of the S.T.Bus to the police. So far as the affidavit in examination-in-chief is concerned, both the claimant as well as the driver of the S.T.Bus tried to shift the burden of negligence on each other. However, the driver of the S.T.Bus has accepted in his cross-examination that he went to the police station to lodge the complaint. He also admit that the panchnam of place of accident was drawn in his presence. He also accepted in his cross-examination that at the place of accident, two buses can easily pass through the road. From the perusal of panchnama at Exh.40, Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined it transpires that the bus was found on the wrong side of the road near by field and it has almost crossed the road. The bumper of the bus was damaged and on the western side of the bus. Thus, considering the position of the bus on the site of the accident, it is evident that the bus came from wrong side and entered into the agricultural field. Thus, the position of the bus clearly transpires that though the road was wide enough at the place of accident, the bus crossed the road and hit the claimant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had not committed any error in recording the finding on the issue of negligence.
9. So far as contention of learned advocate for the appellant that the claimant was aged about 15 years and he was not having the driving license is concerned, in my considered view, to decide the issue of negligence, the age and having driving license or not having driving license, is not relevant, but what is to be seen is that who was negligent for causing the accident. Thus, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding the Issue No.1 and holding the driver of the S.T.Bus 100% negligent for causing the accident.
10. So far as the quantum is concerned, the accident had occurred in the Year-2007. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 15 years and 3 months and he was the student of 10th standard. The learned Tribunal had considered the annual income of the claimant as Rs.15000/-
Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined per annum. The learned Tribunal has also not considered the future prospects of the claimant. In the case of Riyaz (supra), recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the income of 14 years old minor student, who was studying in 7 th standard at Rs.3620/-. The accident took place on 19.04.2002. Therefore, considering the ratio of the above judgment, it would be just and proper, if the income of the claimant at the time of accident, is determined at Rs.3620/-. Thus, considering the notional monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3620/-, the said monthly income is further enhanced by 40% on account of future prospects in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) & Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the notional monthly income after adding 40% to the notional monthly income come to Rs.5068/- (Rs.3620/- + Rs. 1448/- (40% of Rs.3620/-). Therefore, the annual income would come to Rs.60,816/- (Rs.5068 x 12).
11. It is on record that after the accident, the claimant was got admitted for medical treatment at K.M.G. Hospital, Balasinor. The medical certificate at Exh.52 transpires that the claimant sustained the following injuries:-
i.) Bleeding from 7 cm CLW below left eye on cheek
ii) 1 cm CLW lower lip
iii) CLW 1 cm near medical canthus right eye near nose
iv) CLW 10 cm in oral cavity, lower jaw
v) Clinically fracture right, left radius & ulna
vi) Right tibia Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
vii) Left tibia, fibula The injury certificate at Exh.53 also transpires that the claimant was admitted in ICU and he sustained the injuries of both upper limb & lower limb. Injury of chest & dorsal spine.
He also sustained the injuries of lat fracture both side shaft displace & (illegible) etc.
12. It is also on record that the claimant has also examined the Doctor at Exh.35, who issued the Disability Certificate. He proved on record that "patient met with vehicular accident on 30.01.2007 and was treated primarily at K.M.G. General Hospital, Balasinor, and thereafter, he was admitted at Sanjivani Hospital, Ahmedabad for Bilateral Fracture lower end radius with fracture shaft humerus right side with fracture tibia fibula left side with wedge fracture D5, D6, D7, D8 with dorsal cord damage with total paraplegia of both lower limbs with sensation below D5 absent with loss of bowel & bladder control. Patient was treated with plaster for fracture radius. Internal fixation was done with rush pin for fracture humerus. Screw fixation was done for fracture tibia. Fracture of spine was also operated & was fixed with plate and screws. Patient was admitted for 22 days in hospital. Then, again was admitted to KMG Hospital, Balasinor for physiotherapy for 52 days. He also proved on record that at present, the claimant got pain in right shoulder, arm, elbow, both the wrists and hands. He also got the complaints of difficulty in combing hair and wearing clothes. He has got Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined pain in back. The patient is not able to seat. The claimant is not able to stand. The claimant has to take support for routine activities. He also opined that looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant had got permanent disabilities of 95% body as a whole. Considering the evidence of doctor, the learned Tribunal assessed the functional disability of the claimant at 100%. Considering the evidence of doctor and medial report on record, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the disability of the claimant at 100%. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for future loss of income of Rs.10,94,688/-(Rs.60,816 x 18).
13. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, which is at very lower-side. It is on record that the lower limb of the claimant was paralyzed and requires the help of attendant for carrying out the routine work. Thus, in view of the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Riyaz (supra), a sum of Rs.80,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Therefore, compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded under this head is enhanced to Rs.80,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac under the head of pain, shock and suffering, which is, in my considered opinion, is at very lower side. It is on record that the claimant had undergone long treatment and he sustained multiple fractures. Not only this, he has become 100% disabled. Therefore, considering the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined of Riyaz (supra), a sum of Rs.3 lacs awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of marriage prospects. At the time of the accident, the claimant was a young boy aged 15 years and 3 months. Due to the severe nature of the injuries sustained in the vehicular accident, his future prospects of marriage have been adversely affected. Therefore, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Riyaz (supra), a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is hereby awarded under the head of loss of marriage prospects. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- on account of special diet, transportation and attendance charge and sum of Rs.2,67,000/- on account of medical expenses. The compensation awarded under these heads require no interference. Therefore, the same is required to be upheld.
14. It is to be noted that the original claimant had filed the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, however, just compensation as awarded by this Court comes to Rs.21,11,688/-. It is well settled proposition of law that the Court/Tribunal has to award the just compensation and which can be more than that claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. In view of the settled proposition of law, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274.
Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
15. In view of the above discussions, the original claimant shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sr. No. Head Amount in rupees
1 Loss of future earning 10,94,688/-
2 Special diet, transportation (+) 70,000/-
and attendance charges
3 Medical expenses (+) 2,67,000/-
4 Loss of amenities and (+) 80,000/-
enjoymnet of life.
5 Pain, shock and suffering (+) Rs.3,00,000/-
6. Loss of marriage prospects (+)Rs.3,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.21,11,688/-
16. The learned Tribunal, vide its impugned judgment and award, had awarded a sum of Rs7,82,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Eighty Two Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, as compensation. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the claimant herein shall be entitled for an additional compensation to the tune of Rs.13,29,688/- (Rs.21,11,688/- - Rs.7,82,000/-). The learned Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, therefore, the claimant shall be entitled for the same rate of interest per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2013 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
17. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-S.T.Corporation stands dismissed and the Cross- Objections filed by the original claimant stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
18. The appellant-S.T.Corporation shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest within a period of four weeks from today. Upon depositing the said amount, learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount of compensation to the original claimant, after deducting deficit of court fee, if any, after due verification.
19. If any amount of compensation, or any statutory amount, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned, in accordance with the applicable Rules. Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
20. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) GIRISH Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:40:57 IST 2025