Gujarat High Court
Mehulkumar Champaklal Vyas vs Ghanshyambhai Parshottambhai Patel on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2966 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MEHULKUMAR CHAMPAKLAL VYAS
Versus
GHANSHYAMBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No. 895 of 2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,150/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty Only) as compensation, and thereafter, 10% of the awarded amount was deducted on account of the contributory negligence of the claimant-appellant herein and finally, the Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,735/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Five Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization .
2. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the present appeal are summarized as under :-
i. On 11.05.2006, the claimant/appellant herein -
Shri Mehulkumar Champaklal Vyas was traveling on his Honda Unicorn motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-3BF-4626 from Dhoraji to Rajkot. When he reached near the ITI, Gondal, the driver of a Utility Jeep bearing Registration No. GJ-14T-4418, driving at an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life, collided with the motorcycle of the claimant/appellant herein. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries including multiple fractures.
ii. It is also the case of the claimant before the learned Tribunal that at the time of accident, he was aged about 29 years and he was serving with Punjab Honda as Dealers Management System Operator, and thereby, earning salary of Rs.7750/- per month.Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined iii. Upon being served with the notices/summons of the claim petition, the respondent no.1-owner of the Jeep filed the Written Statement at Exh.12, and thereby, denying the negligence on the part of the driver. He also raised the dispute in respect of income and age of the claimant- appellant herein and in brief prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition. The respondent no.3-Insurance Company had also filed the written-statement at Exh-18, and thereby, denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
iv. After considering the pleadings of the parties and material on record, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues at Exh.21, for determination.
1. Whether it is proved that the applicant sustained injuries on account of rashness or negligence in driving on the part of the driver of the vehicles involved in the accident?
2. What amount, if any, the claimants are entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponent?
3. What order?Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined v. In order to prove the claim, the appellant herein/Claimant led oral as well as documentary evidence, which reads as under:-
Sr. Description of Documents Exhibit No. No. 1 Affidavit in examination-in-cheif 28 and cross-examination of the appellant 2 Copy of Insurance policy of 30 offending vehicle 3 Copy of Insurance Policy of 31 Hond Motorcycle 4 Charge-sheet 32 5 Copy of FIR 33 6 Copy of panchnama of place of 34 accident 7 Extract of station diary 35 8 Copy of driving license 36 9 Copy of R.C.Book of Jeep 37 & 38 10. Copy of policy of Hond 39 Motorcycle 11. Copy of driving license of 40 Mehulbhai Champaklal 12. R.C.Book of motor-cycle bearing 41 registration No.GJ-3-BF-4626 13. Copy of Insurance policy of 42 Jeep 14. Refer Note of Ramnath Hospital, 43 Gondal
15. Injury Certificate 44 & 45 16. M.L.C.Card of G.T.Sheth 46 Hospital 17. C.T.Scan of Brain 47 18. Injury Certificate issued by 48 Dr.Jivrajani Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined 19. School Leaving Certificate of 49 the claimant / appellant 20. Certificate issued by Shree 50 Sadashiv Foundation 21. NCC Certificate 51 22. Certificate issued by Aatmiy 52 Infotech 23. Certificate issued by S.Software 53 Private Ltd 24. Certificate issued by Aatmiy 54 Infotech Computer 25. Certificate issued by N.S.I.C. 55 Technical Services 26. Certificate issued by Shree Hari 56 Aatmiy Research Center 27. Certificate issued by Sterling 57 Computer 28. Certificate issued by Shriram 58 Krushna Computer 29. Certificate issued by Miral 59 Infotech 30. Letter issued by Steel Center 60 Limited, Kenya 31. Medical bills 61 32. Deposition of Dipakbhai 62 Chandulal Kotech - Manager of Punjab Honda 33. Certificate issued by Punjab 63 Honda vi. The respondents have not led any oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence.
vii. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidences and material available on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined the claim petition vide impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,150/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty Only) as compensation, and thereafter, 10% of the awarded amount was deducted on account of the contributory negligence of the claimant-appellant herein and finally, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,735/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Five Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
viii. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
impugned judgment and award, the
appellant/original claimant preferred the
captioned appeal, thereby, challenging the
negligence as well as quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr.Tushar Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/original claimant vehemently submitted that it has been proved on record that the accident has occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending jeep. He further submitted that the FIR came to be registered Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined against the driver of the said jeep. Not only this, after investigating the crime, the prosecution agency has filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the jeep, however, the learned Tribunal, without any evidence in rebuttal, held that the claimant himself was negligent to the extent of 10%. He further submitted that the finding returned by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the respondents neither produced any documentary evidence to rebut the version nor the driver of the jeep stepped into witness-box to prove the contributory negligence of the claimant. Therefore, in absence of any rebuttal on the part of the respondent, the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in holding the claimant/appellant herein as negligent to the extent of 10% in causing the accident. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the appellant placed the reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Syed Sadiq Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins.Co. reported (2014) 2 SCC 735 & Jiju Kuruvila Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166. Relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the finding returned by the learned Tribunal under Issue No.1 is required to be reversed.
5. So far as the quantum is concerned, learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the appellant was working with Punjab Honda as Dealers Management System Operator and he was earning Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Rs.7750/- per month as a salary. He further submitted that in order to prove his salary, he examined the manager of the said firm, who proved that the appellant was getting a sum of Rs.7750/- as a salary from the said firm. He further submitted that not only this, the salary certificate was also proved at Exh.63, but the learned Tribunal has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the appellant could not prove the salary on record. Hence, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3050/-. He further submitted that it is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 29 years and he was gainfully employed. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have enhanced the monthly income by 50% in view of the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(3) GLH 536 SC. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also awarded the meager amount of compensation under the head of loss of actual income, compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering and transportation and special diet. He further submitted that the appellant/claimant remained bed ridden for a long period, however, the learned Tribunal had not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of attendant charges. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation in all above heads. Therefore, he prayed for awarding the just compensation and modification of the impugned judgment and award.
Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
6. On the other hand, Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, rightly held that the claimant / appellant himself negligent to the extent of 10% in causing the accident. He further submitted that the accident took place in the night. Therefore, the claimant could have been conscious to drive his motor-cycle in slow speed to avoid the accident, however, at the time of accident, he was driving his motor-cycle at excessive speed, and therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly held negligent to the claimant to the extent of 10%. He further submitted that the finding returned by the learned Tribunal under Issue No.1 deserves to be upheld.
7. So far as the quantum is concerned, Mr.Alpesh Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the income could not prove on record. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, considering the minimum wages at the time of accident and having regard to the nature of work and educational qualification, rightly considered the income of the claimant/appellant as Rs.3500/- per month. He further submitted that the claimant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 18% body as a whole and with the consent of learned advocates for the parties, consented for 16% disability body as whole. He further submitted that considering the nature of disability Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined sustained by the appellant/claimant, the learned Tribunal has rightly not considered the future prospects of the appellant. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation under the head of loss of dependency, actual loss of income, pain, shock and suffering, nutritious food, attendant charges, transportation and medical expenses. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it emerges that the learned Tribunal held the appellant negligent to the extent of 10% in causing the accident. The appellant-claimant had proved on record the copy of FIR at Exh.33, copy of panchnama of place of accident at Exh.34 and charge-sheet at Exh.32. A perusal of the FIR at Exh.33 transpires that the FIR was lodged against the driver of the jeep. Further, the charge- sheet at Exh.32 transpires that after completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the jeep. The appellant/claimant was himself rider of the motor-cycle. Being claimant & eye-witness of the accident, he filed an affidavit in examination-in-chief at Exh.28, wherein in Paragraph No.1 of the affidavit, he deposed that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the jeep involved in the accident. He was cross-examined by the learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company. The said fact was challenged by putting a suggestion and the said suggestion was denied. A panchnama of place of accident proved at Exh.34 also indicate that the Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined accident occurred owing to the negligence of driver of the jeep. To rebut the version of the claimant/appellant, neither the Insurance Company has examined any other eye witness; nor the driver of the jeep stepped into the witness-box. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila (supra), wherein in Paragraph No.20.5, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"20.5 The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a Scene Mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof so as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction etc. depends on number of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident caused, but in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual. "
9. Now, coming to the case on hand, the respondents herein have not produced any evidence on record to rebut the version of the claimant/appellant. Therefore, the finding returned by the learned Tribunal that the claimant/appellant is negligent to the extent of 100% in causing the accident is Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined not sustainable. At this juncuture, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Syed Sadiq (supra), wherein in Paragraph No.29, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"29. On the matter of extent of contribution to the accident, it is held by the Tribunal that the appellants/claimants herein should have taken utmost care while moving on the highway. Looking at the spot of the accident, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants/claimants were moving on the middle of the road which led to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that though the tractor has been charge sheeted under sections 279 and 338 of IPC, but given the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants also contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%. The High Court without assigning any reason concurred with the findings of the Tribunal with respect to contributory negligence. We find it pertinent to observe that both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding the appellants/ claimants in these appeals liable for contributory negligence. The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the contribution of the appellants/claimants in the accident is not proved by the respondents by producing evidence and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, which has been upheld by the High Court, is set aside. "Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
10. Now, coming to the case on hand, it is apparent on record that the respondents have not led to rebut the version of the claimant/appellant. The claimant/appellant not only led the documentary evidence in the nature of FIR, charge-sheet and panchnama, but also stepped into witness box to prove his version while the respondents have not led any evidence. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal in absence of any evidence of contributory negligence on the part of claimant/appellant is not sustainable, and therefore, the same is liable to be reversed and accordingly, I hold that the driver of the jeep was solely responsible for causing the accident.
11. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has determined the income of the claimant/appellant at Rs.3500/- after ignoring the Salary Certificate and the deposition of the claimant as well as deposition of the claimant's witness viz. Dipakbhai Chandubhai Kotecha at Exh.62. In the claim petition, in paragraph no.10.2, the claimant/appellant averred that he is working with Punjab Honda as Dealers Management System Operator and earning monthly salary of Rs.7750/- per month. The claimant in his affidavit at Exh.28 also deposed on the same line. Not only this, the claimant has also examined Mr.Dipakbhai Chandubhai Kotecha at Exh.62. In his affidavit of examination- in-chief at Exh.62, he deposed that the claimant was working with the said firm viz. Punjab Honda and he was getting Rs.7750/- per month as salary. He was cross-examined. Not Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined only this, he also proved the Certificate at Exh.63, whereby the authorized signatory of Punjab Automobile certified that the claimant/appellant was working with the said firm and his salary was Rs.7750/- per month. The income was challenged by way of putting the suggestion to the witnesses as well as to the claimant/appellant. The said suggestions were denied by the claimant/appellant as well as the witnesses. The respondents have not led thereafter any evidence to prove their defence that the claimant/appellant was not earning Rs.7500/- per month. The learned Tribunal committed serious illegality in not relying the version of the appellant that at the time of accident, he was gainfully working with Punjab Honda and earning Rs.7750/- per month. Thus, in light of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have determined the income of the claimant/appellant at Rs.7500/-, but the learned Tribunal considered the monthly income of the claimant/appellant as Rs.3500/-, which is not as per the record. Therefore, the finding returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of income is set-aside and accordingly, the income of the claimant/appellant is assessed at Rs.7750/- per month.
12. So far as the future prospective income is concerned, the learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Erudhaya Priya Versus State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in 2020 SCCOnline SC 601 and Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.State Road Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Transport Corporation reported in (2023) 20 SCC 774 and the two judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.44 of 2020 and another judgment passed in First Appeal No.4525 of 2022. In Mohammad Sabeer (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.17, 18 & 19 has observed as under:-
"17. 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 just 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.
18. The accident that caused the injury took place on 12.06.2009. The acknowledgement of both the Income Tax Returns produced by the Appellant show that Tax Returns were till 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009. Both the Income Tax Returns produced as proof of income were from 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.
19. 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 prospect as the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors."
13. Further, in Erudhaya Priya (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Court in Paragraph No.13 has observed as under:-
"13. We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 12 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration."
14. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.44 of 2020 also considered the future prospects in case of disability when the disability was consented to the extent of 20% body as a whole. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.4525 of 2022, awarded the future prospects in the case of injury.
15. Coming to the case on hand, it is on record that as per the Disability Certificate at Exh.29, Dr.Kaushik Jivrajani certified that the claimant/appellant has suffered the disability of 18% body as a whole. However, the learned advocates appearing before the learned Tribunal consented to assess the permanent disability at 16% body as a whole. It is on record that the appellant/claimant sustained the fracture on the right hand, fracture on the right leg, serious head injuries of hemetoma and other injuries on bodies. He was Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined surgically operated and he remained bed-ridden for a long period of 5 months. He was admitted in the hospital for treatment time and again. Further, it is on record that the claimant obtained various certificates and Diplomas in Computer and the same have been proved on record at Exh.50 to 59. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and having regard to the ratio of judgment of Pranay Shety (supra), monthly income of the claimant/appellant is required to be enhanced by 50% on account of future prospects and accordingly, after adding 50% to the monthly income of Rs.7750/-, the total income monthly income would come to Rs.11625/- (Rs.7750 + Rs.3875 (50% of Rs.7750). It is on record that at the time of accident, the claimant/appellant was aged about 29 years. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 and considered the functional disability at 16%. Thus, considering the income of the claimant/appellant as Rs.11625 per month and functional disability at 16%, the future loss of income would come to Rs.3,79,440 (Rs.11625 x 16% x 12 x 17). The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7000/- as an actual loss of income. It is on record that the claimant/appellant remained bed ridden for a period of almost 10 months. Therefore, actual loss of income would come to Rs.77,500/- (Rs.7750 X 10). The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. It is on record that the claimant/appellant sustained multiple fractures and severe injuries on head which caused hematoma. He remained bed ridden for a period of 10 months.
Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Thus, considering this aspect, it would be just and proper, if the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded under this head is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded the medical expenses on the basis of the evidence produced by the claimant. The same is not required to be interfered with and the compensation of Rs.39,350/- awarded under the head of medical expenses is maintained. So far as the compensation under the head of special diet, transportation and attendance charges is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/-. Considering the period of confinement of the claimant/appellant on bed and the period of treatment and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant/appellant, it could be just and proper, if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head.
16. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the claimant/appellant shall be entitled for the following compensation under the following heads:-
Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded in
rupees.
1 Future loss of income 3,79,440/-
2 Actual loss of income (+) 77,500/-
3 Medical expenses (+) 39,350/-
4 Pain, shock and sufferings (+) 50,000/-
Special diet, attendant &
transportation.
5 Special diet, attendant & (+) 50,000/-
transportation.
Total Compensation (=) Rs. 5,96,290/-
Page 18 of 20
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Compensation awarded by
impugned Judgment and (-) Rs. 1,47,735/-
Award
Enhanced amount of (=) Rs. 4,48,555/-
compensation
17. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the
claimant/appellant shall be entitled for an additional
compensation of Rs.4,48,555/- (Rs.5,96,290/- - Rs.1,47,735/-). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. Therefore, the claimant shall also be entitled for the same rate of interest on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
18. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal stands allowed partly and judgment and award is modified to that extent. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount along with interest, with the concerned learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today. Upon depositing the said amount of compensation, learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount of compensation along with interest to the appellant after deducting the deficit of Court fee, if any and after due verification.
Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2966/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
19. If any amount is lying deposited in the captioned appeal with the Registry of this court, be transmitted to the concerned learned Tribunal. Records & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal. No order as to costs.
20. Pending application, if any stands disposed of.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) GIRISH Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Dec 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 01 20:48:34 IST 2025