Gujarat High Court
Miteshbhai Jitendrabhai Bhatt vs Maheboobbhai Yunusbhai Vahora on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1466/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1466 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MITESHBHAI JITENDRABHAI BHATT
Versus
MAHEBOOBBHAI YUNUSBHAI VAHORA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 21/08/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and 2nd Additional District Judge, Petlad in MACP No.47 of 2018 (Old MACP No.24 of 2012).
2. Short facts of the case of the appellant original claimant are as under:
2.1. On 23/12/2011, the applicant was travelling in the rickshaw bearing registration no.GJ-23-W-4652 and when said Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:44:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1466/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined rickshaw was passing near Swaminarayan Mandir, Anand Sojitra Road, the opponent no.1 was driving the said rickshaw with excessive speed in rash and negligent manner and all of a sudden applied break as a result of which the rickshaw turned turtle and the applicant sustained serious injuries of fracture on the right leg and immediately he was shifted to Karamsad Hospital where three operations were performed, rode was inserted and his right leg below knee was amputated.
2.2. The appellant-original claimant therefore filed claim petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-
against the respondents.
2.3. Vide the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition preferred by the appellant-original claimant under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding that the appellant-original claimant is entitled to compensation of an amount of Rs.13,30,431/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate costs.
3. This Court vide order dated 25/08/2020, noticing the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant- original claimant and the grounds raised in the present appeal, has admitted the appeal.
4. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:44:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1466/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined appellants-original claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding inadequate compensation to the claimant and has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective. It is contended that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the injured though evidence is produced with regard to the same. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has overlooked the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the assessment of future prospects.
4.1. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager and unrealistic amount under other conventional heads without considering the injury sustained by the claimant and the socio-economic background of the injured. Learned advocate has therefore submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not just, fair, and reasonable and it is required to be enhanced in accordance with the settled legal principles of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
4.2. It is also submitted that the while computing the compensation, the Tribunal ought to have taken a holistic view considering the inflationary trends and the rising cost of living.
4.3. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant-original claimant has urged this Court to enhance the amount of compensation accordingly which may be awarded from the date of filing of claim petition till its Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:44:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1466/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined actual realization.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the other side has placed reliance upon the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal and submitted that after appreciating the materials available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation under each head which is just, proper and reasonable and not required to be interfered in this appeal and lastly prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
6. Heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the record and proceedings and impugned judgment and award, more particularly, the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while considering the issue of quantum of compensation.
7. In the impugned judgment and award, learned Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant original claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month. In para-16 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal discussed about the evidence with regard to income of the claimant. It appears that the appellant original claimant proved the income through oral as well as documentary evidence. To prove his income, the appellant has examined witnessed namely Arvindbhai Ambalal Joshi vide Exh.23. It appears from the oral evidence of the said witness that the appellant was survived in his company as Electrical Supervisor from 01/05/2011 to 30/11/2011 and he was paid monthly salary of Rs.7,000/- and also produced the vouchers vide Exh.61 to 67 and also produced the certificate vide Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:44:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1466/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined Exh.68. Considering the oral and the documentary evidence, it appears that the appellant survived as a Electrical Supervisor and monthly pay/income of the appellant was Rs.7,000/-. The appellant has served up to 30/11/2011 and thereafter not resumed his duty. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal has fixed income of Rs.5,0000/- which is not just, proper and reasonable. It is required to be considered that the appellant is a Electric Supervisor and considering his qualification, his monthly income is required to be accessed as Rs.6,500/- which would be just, proper and reasonable.
7.1. Looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the disability certificate issued to that effect and considering the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while assessing 100% disability, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to get future rise in income looking to the seriousness of his injuries. Hence, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% prospective income is required to be considered as age of the injured was 21 years at the time of the accident. Further, noticing the fact that the age of the injured was 21 years at the time of the accident, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the schedule prescribed, multiplier of 18 would be just and proper. Lastly, the amount awarded under other conventional heads is required to be reconsidered accordingly.
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:44:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1466/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
8. In the present case, the claimant was 21 years of age at the time of accident and he is an unmarried. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the impact of the same on his life, substantial increase/addition under the heads such as PSS, SAT, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects etc. is required to be given.
9. Therefore, the appellant-original claimant is entitled to enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
Compensation As per award under As awarded by this challenge (Rs.) Court (Rs.) Income at the time Rs.5,000/- per Rs.6,500/- per of the accident. month month Prospective income - 40% = Rs.2,600/-
Hence, Rs.9,100/-
Functional 100% 100%
disability
Multiplier 18 18
Future loss of Rs.10,80,000/- Rs.19,65,600/-
income (Rs.5,000/- x 12x18) (Rs.9,100/- x 12x18)
Medical expenses Rs.1,60,431/- Rs.1,60,431/-
Actual loss of Rs.30,000/- Rs.39,000/-
income
Pain, shock and Rs.50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
suffering
Special Diet, Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
Attendant and
Transportation
Charges
Loss of amenities - Rs.1,00,000/-
of life
Artificial limb - Rs.1,50,000/-
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:44:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1466/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
Marriage prospects - Rs.75,000/-
Total Rs.13,30,431/- Rs.27,20,031/-
Enhanced amount - Rs.13,89,600/-
of compensation
Rate of interest 9% 7.5%
10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award dated 21/08/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and 2nd Additional District Judge, Petlad in MACP No.47 of 2018 (Old MACP No.24 of 2012) is hereby modified.
11. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Naggappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. 2003 ACJ 12, the compensation should not be restricted to the amount claimed and it is required to award just compensation which is reasonable and in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation more than the amount which was claimed before the Tribunal.
12. The appellant-original claimant is held entitled to total compensation of an amount of Rs.27,20,031/-. Since by impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.13,30,431/-, the appellant-original claimant shall be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.13,89,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization.
The respondents-original opponents are held liable to pay such enhanced amount of compensation jointly and severally.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:44:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1466/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
13. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited with the concerned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release and disburse the entire award amount in favour of the original claimant, after due verification as per the original judgment and award.
14. Entire awarded amount to be paid to the original claimant after due verification as per the original judgment and award considering the fact that the unfortunate accident occurred in the year 2011 and the original claimant is waiting for the compensation from very long period i.e. about fifteen years.
15. Let, such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal strictly in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard; preferably within a period of two weeks from deposit of such amount. The Tribunal is directed to realize the deficit Court fees before proceeding with the disbursement of the amount.
16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if received.
(D. M. VYAS, J) ILA Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:44:36 IST 2025