Gujarat High Court
Maulikbhai Dilipbhai Pandya vs Manager Sarva Vidhyalay Kelavdi Mandal on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1712 of 2020
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 66 of 2020
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1712 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MAULIKBHAI DILIPBHAI PANDYA
Versus
MANAGER SARVA VIDHYALAY KELAVDI MANDAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. First Appeal no.1712 of 2020 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 judgment and award dated 09/10/2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary-III) Gandhinagar in MACP No.518 of 2014.
2. Respondent No.2 insurance company has filed Cross Objection No.66 of 2020 challenging the aforesaid judgment Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined and award dated 09/10/2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary-III) Gandhinagar in MACP No.518 of 2014 and prayed to allow the cross objection and dismiss the appeal filed by the original claimant.
3. Short facts of the claim petition are as under:
3.1. On 03/05/2013 at about 1:15 p.m., when the applicant original claimant was passing from Chh-5 road to Ch-5 road by way of driving his Esteem Car No.GJ-1-HN-6661, the driver of yellow school bus Eicher No.GJ-18-X-2177 dashed with the applicant's vehicle coming from opposite side of Dr. Jivraj Mehta Gate and caused an accident as a result of which the applicant sustained injuries.
3.2. The applicant original claimant therefore filed claim petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-
against the respondents.
3.3. Vide the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition preferred by the applicant-original claimant under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding the applicant-original claimant entitled to get compensation of an amount of Rs.1,34,504/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate costs.
4. Vide order dated 05/11/2020, this Court has admitted Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined the appeal as well as the cross objection.
5. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the 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 in the form of Income Tax Returns is produced with regard to the same.
5.1. Learned advocate for the original claimant has vehemently argued that original claimant has produced the copy of the income tax returns of last two years before the accident. The same are exhibited. It is further submitted that the original claimant also produced the documentary evidence to prove his salary, however, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the relevant documentary evidence and assessed his monthly income of Rs.8,000/- which is not just, proper and reasonable. It is further submitted that in the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the economic condition of the original claimant and vehemently argued that the original claimant is having Esteem Car and produced the copy of the RC book of the said car on record, however, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the same and fixed the very law income of the claimant which is not just proper and reasonable and lastly prayed to interfere in the impugned judgment.
Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined 5.2. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the original claimant that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager and unrealistic amount under other conventional heads without considering the financial dependency of the family members 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.
5.3. 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 actual realization.
Per Contra
6. Learned advocate of the insurance company has vehemently argued on the issue of the income of original claimant and submitted that the claimant failed to produce the constant/continuous copies of last three years income tax returns on record. It is further submitted that the claimant has produced the computerized salary certificate without authorization, without signature and seal and not proved the important facts that who issued the certificate. It is further submitted that the original claimant has failed to prove his income by producing cogent documentary evidence.
Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined 6.1. Learned advocate for the insurance company has further submitted that in absence of income proof for fixing of the income, the minimum wages should be applied and vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the minimum wages and considered the monthly income of Rs.8,000/- which is not just, proper and reasonable. It is further submitted that at the relevant point of time, the rate of minimum wages for the skilled person was Rs.5,470/- and for the semi-skilled person was Rs.5,330/- and the same is just proper and reasonable and lastly prayed to interfere in the impugned judgment.
7. 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.
8. Considering the rival contentions of the respective parties, it appears that the controversy between the parties in narrow compass is only on the issue of income of the original claimant.
9. Before deciding the issue of income, it is required to note that in the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal recorded the at length findings on the issue of negligence and the driver of the offending vehicle is negligent to the extent of 85% and driver of Esteem Car No.GJ-1-HN-6661-original Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined claimant is negligent to the extent of 15% for the accident which is just, proper and reasonable and not required to be interfered at all.
10. Considering the facts of the subject matter, the original claimant filed the affidavit in form of chief examination vide Exh.20 and stated that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs.75,000/- per month by way of job in Videocon company as a Sales Manager and produced salary slip vide Exh.27. It appears from the document at Exh.27 that it is a computerized document and there is no signature of the competent authority and no stamp or seal of the company.
11. The applicant original claimant has produced Form-16 for the assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 at Exh.34. It appears from the record that in the assessment year 2010- 2011, gross salary income of the original claimant was Rs.3,61,881/- and in the assessment year 2011-2012, gross salary income of the original claimant was Rs.2,61,137/- and total income of last two years was Rs.6,23,018/-. But the original claimant has failed to produce the relevant document of last three financial years before the accident. This fact is required to be considered.
12. During the cross examination, the original claimant clearly stated the fact that presently he is not survived in the Videocon company and not filed any income tax returns. This fact is also required to be considered.
Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the subject matter, it appears from the record that the original claimant was good in earning capacity. The original claimant has also produced the RC book of the Esteem Car. It appears from the same that he is the owner of the Esteem Car and hence, economic condition of the claimant is required to be ascertained.
14. Argument of learned advocate of the insurance company that the original claimant has failed to prove his income is not sustainable.
15. Argument of the learned advocate of the insurance company that the income of the original claimant should fixed on the basis of rate of minimum wages at the relevant point of time is also not sustainable when ascertained the earning capacity of the claimant through the documentary evidence produced on record.
16. Admittedly the original claimant failed to produce copies of the last three years income tax returns/Form-16. Under the circumstances, considering the earning capacity and financial condition of the original claimant, it would be just and proper if the income of original claimant is fixed at Rs.14,000/- per month.
17. Considering the findings assigned in the impugned judgment and award, it appears that the learned Tribunal awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation under Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined other heads except under the head of actual loss of income.
18. Accordingly, considering monthly income of the original claimant as Rs.14,000/-, future loss of income would be determined as Rs.14,000/-*12*17*7% which comes to Rs.1,99,920/-.
19. Therefore, original claimant who is appellant in the First Appeal No.1712 of 2020 is entitled to amount of compensation as computed hereunder:
Compensation As per award under As awarded by this challenge (Rs.) Court (Rs.) Actual salary/ Rs.8,000/- per Rs.14,000/- per income month month Disability 7% 7% Multiplier 17 17 Future Loss Rs.1,14,240/- Rs.1,99,920/-
(Rs.8,000/- x 12 x (Rs.14,000/- x 12 x
17 x 7%) 17 x 7%)
Pain, Shock and
Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Suffering
Medical Expenses Rs.26,000/- Rs.26,000/-
Special Diet, Rs.4,000/- Rs.4,000/-
Attendant Charges
and Transportation
Actual loss of Rs.4,000/- Rs.14,000/-
income
Total Rs.1,58,240/- Rs.2,53,920/-
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
Compensation
Negligence of the 15% = Rs.23,736/- 15% = Rs.38,088/-
claimant is 15% So, Rs.1,34,504/- So, Rs.2,15,832/-
i.e. Rs.1,58,240/- - i.e. Rs.2,53,920/- -
Rs.23,736/- Rs.38,088/-
Enhanced amount - Rs.81,328/-
of compensation (Rs.2,15,832/- -
Rs.1,34,504/-)
20. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award dated 09/10/2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary-III) Gandhinagar in MACP No.518 of 2014 is hereby modified in favour of the original claimant who is appellant in First Appeal No.1712 of 2020. The original claimant is held entitled to receive total compensation of an amount of Rs.2,15,832/- deducting 15% negligence of the claimant himself as considered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, since the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,34,504/- deducting 15% negligence of the claimant himself, the original claimant is entitled to get enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.81,328/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization. The respondents - original opponents are held jointly and severally liable to pay such enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest.
21. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited with the concerned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1712/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined 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.
22. 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.
23. As this Court has enhanced the amount of compensation in the First Appeal No.1712 of 2020 filed by the original claimant as aforesaid, Cross Objection No.66 of 2020 filed by the insurance company stands rejected.
24. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if received.
(D. M. VYAS, J) ila Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:55:28 IST 2025