Gujarat High Court
Chiragbhai Jitendrabhai Rathod vs Aqilbhai Sikandarbhai Ghanchi on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4212/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4212 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
CHIRAGBHAI JITENDRABHAI RATHOD
Versus
AQILBHAI SIKANDARBHAI GHANCHI & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
Mr Y K Gadhia, for the respondent no.3
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and award dated 13.09.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.479 of 2023, the appellant - original claimant preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Ms. PH Hotchandani, learned Advocate for the appellant -
original Claimant and Mr. YK Gadhia, learned Advocate for respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:09:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4212/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 26.04.2023, the appellant
- claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-07-CL-3397 and the driver of motorcycle was driving his motorcycle at moderate speed on right side of the road. At around 12:00 pm, when he reached at the place of incident, one Eicher bearing Reg. No.GJ-31-T-5977 which was driven by opponent no.1 and owned by opponent no.2 came in rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle. As a result of which the claimant sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the appellant has filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the disability is more than 10% and in view of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Ins. Co. Ltd., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396, a lump-sum amount of Rs.3 lakhs is required to be awarded, whereas, the learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.1,75,500/- under the head of future economic loss. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the award and on the contrary this is the case of contributory negligence as claimant was travelling as pillion rider on the motorcycle, hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered negligence of another vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-07-CL-3397. Hence, Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:09:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4212/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) It is undisputed fact that the factum of incident and disability remained unchallenged and as per the Disability Certificate at Exhibit 40 the disability is shown as 32% however the parties agreed and consented to consider disability as 13%. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun (supra) in para 12 held which reads as under:
"Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick."
7) Herein the disability is more than 10% and for the permanent disability upto 10% which is required to be awarded Rs.1 lakh as body as whole if the disability is above 10% upto 30% then Rs.3 lakhs is required to be awarded.
8) So far the argument that the claimant was a pillion rider and the case is of composite negligence is concerned then if claimant is third party then in composite negligence he has right to recover the amount from any tortfeasor and merely to argue about contributory negligence is not sufficient in order to prove contributory negligence before the Tribunal and the Insurance Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:09:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4212/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined Company has to lead evidence. In this regard reference is required to be drawn from the case of Shrikrishna Kanta Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors., Neutral Citation - 2025 INSC 394, hence, arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the respondent no.3 is not acceptable in absence of any material or evidence on record.
9) In view of above discussion, in the present appeal the awarded compensation of Rs.1,75,500/- under the head of future economic loss is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. Further, the amount awarded under all the other heads are just and proper.
10) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court Tribunal Future economic loss Rs.1,75,500/- Rs.3,00,000/-
including additional amount of Rs.1,24,500/-
Loss of income during Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- treatment (2 months) Medical Expenses Rs.1,17,000/- Rs.1,17,000/-
Pain, Shock and Rs.13,000/- Rs.13,000/- Suffering Special Diet, Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Transportation & Attendant Charges Total Compensation Rs.3,30,500/- Rs.4,55,000/-
including additional amount of Rs.1,24,500/-
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,30,500/-, however, as discussed above Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:09:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4212/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,24,500/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) It is needless to say that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families and there is no bar that compensation is restricted up to the claim by the claimant and the High Court and Tribunal have to award the compensation up to that extent. In this regard reference is required to be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274, wherein, it has been observed that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed.
13) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 13.09.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad, in MAC Petition No.479 of 2023 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.1,24,500/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:09:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4212/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025 undefined
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
15) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:09:33 IST 2025