Gujarat High Court
Parbatji Jethaji Parmar (Rajput) vs Ghemarbhai Jethabhai Uplana on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2428/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2428 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
PARBATJI JETHAJI PARMAR (RAJPUT)
Versus
GHEMARBHAI JETHABHAI UPLANA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIMANSU M PADHYA(1611) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment and award dated 23.11.2017. The said award was passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.63 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxiliary) Banaskantha-Palanpur.
2. The vehicular accident is of 25.01.2017. On the said day, the appellant was traveling on his motor cycle no.GJ-8-BD-4709, moving towards Memadpur. When he reached certain three roads on the way, a jeep bearing registration no.GJ-08-F-0770, Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:15:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2428/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined being driven by the opponent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, slammed against his motor cycle. Consequently, he suffered certain injuries. He underwent medical treatment as a consequence of the accident, whereby two rods had to be fixed in his left leg below the knee and that even skin grafting had to be done in the left leg below the knee.
3. In the aforesaid claim petition, the Tribunal was pleased to allow compensation to the tune of Rs.5,36,280/- to be recovered jointly and severally from the opponent no.1 and 2, with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition till actual realization.
4. By way of the present appeal, the original claimant present appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has been very conservative in allowing the compensation to the appellant and that compensation so computed is on the lower side and therefore is not just or adequate. It was submitted that for the compensation to be just it has to be such which would put the claimant in the original position where he was before the accident. It was submitted that evidence was led to indicate that the income was the appellant was Rs.20,000/-, however, discarding the said evidence, the Tribunal has only assessed the income of the injured-appellant at Rs.6,000/- per month and accordingly has calculated the compensation awarded in the claim petition. It was also submitted that even as per the Minimum Wages pertaining to a skill labour, the amount that has been prescribed under the said Schedule is Rs.8387/-. It was submitted that the said amount is in respect of Gram Panchayat and Municipalities as has been described under the said Schedule. It was thus submitted that even if the said Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:15:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2428/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined amount had been taken to be the correct amount then too, the finding on the monthly income of the injured, could be set right. It was thus submitted that calculating the yearly income on the said basis, the same would be Rs.1,00,644/- (8387 x 12). It was submitted that again, the insurance company had categorically agreed to take the disability of the body as a whole to 18% in the matter and the same would therefore be to the tune of Rs.18,116/-(1,00,644 X 18%). It was submitted that multiplying the said amount (multiplicand) with a multiplier of 18 (because the age of the applicant is 22 year), the resultant amount would therefore, turn out to be Rs.3,26,086/-. It was submitted that the Tribunal has calculated the actual loss of income, taking into account for the period of four months the said being the period, whereby, the appellant had to take rest. It was submitted that since the said amount would be the actual salary multiplied by four(4), the same would be Rs.8387 X 4 which is Rs.33,548/-. It was submitted that again, under the Head of Pain, Shock and Suffering, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/- which may kindly be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. It was submitted that similarly for Special Diet Attendant Charges and Transportation, the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.15,000/- which may kindly be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Again for the Loss of Amenities suffered by the appellant as 18% disability is permanent in nature, the same may kindly be allowed to the extent of Rs.35,000/-. It was thus submitted that from the total amount so computed, against the amount which has already been provided by the Tribunal may be subtracted, to arrive at the actual enhancement. It was thus submitted that on the enhanced amount too, 9% interest may please be awarded to the Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:15:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2428/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined present injured-appellant(original claimant).
5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the insurance company, Mr Gadhia, has vehemently argued that the compensation by has been properly assessed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the rational of minimum wages would come into play only when there is no proof of income produced by the appellant. It was submitted that since proof was given before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has assessed the said evidence which the appellant has not been able to disprove therefore, the present appeal is liable to be rejected. It was submitted there is no reason for any enhancement in the compensation and therefore the first appeal may kindly be rejected.
6. Having heard the respective parties in the matter, the Court proceeds to decide the present petition in terms hereinafter.
7. The only point of determination that arises in the present matter is whether the computation of compensation done by the Tribunal was fair, just and adequate? If not, what should have been the actual amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal?
8. Firstly the evidence on the income and disability of the appellant so as to arrive at the compensation. At document Exhibit-16, the appellant alleges that owing to the accident he had suffered injury and that he was taken to Ahmedabad Sanjivani Super Speciality Hospital where he was treated as internal patients for 3 days and that two rods had to be implanted in his left leg and thereafter again he was taken to the Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:15:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2428/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined hospital of Bhupendra Patel Duck Orthopedic Hospital Palanpur and he was treated as internal patient for 9 days and that there, skin grafting was done on the left leg by taking skin from the thigh of the right leg and certain plastic surgery was also made. Again after 3 weeks he developed complications and had to be again sent to Ahmedabad Sanjivani Super Speciality Hospital, whereat he had to be operated below the knee in the left leg, and thereafter after 2 days, he was discharged. Again he was admitted at Duck Orthopedic hospital of Dr. Bhupendra Patel at Palanpur. The appellant submitted that he had to visit the doctor for dressings regularly every 15 days and that even on the date of deposition i.e. 29.8.2017, the treatment was continuing.
9. It has also been averred in the said affidavit that he was earning Rs.10,000/- by doing from the agriculture and animal husbandry and that he was also working in the Drip Irrigation Office, where too he was paid a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, it was the case of the applicant that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In the cross examination, he admitted that he did not have any proof for the income.
10. Hence, the present case is a case where there is virtually no proof for same income, save the assertions of the appellant himself. In the circumstances, this Court is also inclined to look into the minimum wages applicable. On perusal for the corresponding schedule in respect of the year 2017, the salary of a skilled labor as prescribed in the said Schedule is Rs.8387/- per month. Hence, this Court is of the view that a person who claims to be working in tapak sinchai (drip irrigation) office and also doing agriculture work and animal husbandry would Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:15:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2428/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined necessarily will have to be treated as skilled laborer and accordingly ,and the assessment of income ought to have been done at Rs.8387/- instead of the conservative amount of Rs. 6,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal.
11. In so far as the disability is concerned, the impugned judgment itself records that the other side i.e. the insurance company agreed to a disability being assessed at 18%. Thus the said finding is not liable to be interfered, in as much as the both the sides before the Tribunal had jointly consented to the disability of the appellant injured to be assessed at 18%. Therefore, the said finding is retained.
12. Now, the compensation of the yearly income. As discussed the monthly salary of the appellant is pegged at Rs.8387/- per month. And looking to the ratio in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of future prospects would be applicable. Thus, the salary would be Rs.8387 + (8387X40%)=11,741.8/- rounded of to be Rs.11,742/-. Thus, the yearly income of the appellant injured would be Rs.11,742/- which is Rs.1,40,904/-. Now, when the future loss of income is to be considered, the income would be limited to the disability, i.e. consequent loss that the appellant suffers owing to such disability. As the disability was 18%, and looking to the injuries and the nature of work that the appellant was doing, it is only fair that the said disability be retained to be the functional disability of the injured appellant. The functional disability therefore would be to the tune of 18%,. Thus, when the 18% of the said income is calculated which would be Rs.25,363/- (1,40,904/- X 18/100). Now the multiplier Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:15:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2428/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined in terms of the judgment in the Sarla Varma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 (06) SCC 121. For a person who is aged 22 years, the multiplier would be 18. It may be noted at this point that again the impugned judgment has given a finding that the age of the injured appellant was 22 years. No contrary submissions by the other side has been canvassed against the said finding before this Court while the present appeal was being argued. Hence, the multiplier will have to be applied in terms of the said age, and hence the multiplier would be 18. Multiplying the aforesaid amount with 18, the same will be Rs.4,53,534/-. The question of deducting amounts towards personal expenditure (i.e. the amount spent on the appellant himself) does not arise in an injury case, as the appellant continues to remain alive post the accident, and therefore, the compensation, sans such deduction, shall have to be awarded.
13. The actual loss of the appellant would be the actual monthly income (without adding future prospect) multiplied by four, that being the months for which the appellant was under
treatment and rest. Thus, the amount would be Rs.8387/- X 4 which is Rs.33,548/-. Again under the head of Pain Shock and Suffering, the claim of the present appellant is of Rs.50,000/-. However, looking to the nature of the injury and the treatment, the Pain Shock and Suffering could reasonably be assessed at Rs.35,000/-. The amount under the head of Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Transportation would have to be increased from Rs.15,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal, more so, went for two times, the appellant had to be admitted at Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:15:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2428/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined Banaskantha and be brought to Ahmedabad Sanjivani Super Speciality Hospital. That apart, looking to the nature of injury ,and he would have to retain attendant and follow diet regime. Hence, the enhanced amount under the said Head would be to the tune of Rs.75,000/-.
14. As regards the Loss of Amenities, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. However, on a conservative estimate, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is liable to be awarded, for the applicant will have to bear with steel rods for the rest of his life in his left leg. In the circumstances, the aggregate compensation would be the total of the foregoing, which is Rs.6,25,082/-. Therefore, the amount has enhanced would be Rs.88,802/-(6,25,082/- (minus) 5,36,280/-). The enhanced amount will be interested at the rate of 9%.
15. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by insurance company with the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Entire amount shall be disbursed forthwith, more so when the accident of the year 2017. No further FDRs shall be created on the enhanced amount. The appeal having been allowed to the aforesaid extent, the R&P be sent back to the Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J) CHIRAG D PAL Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 18 23:15:19 IST 2025