Gujarat High Court

Piyushkumar Laxmanbhai Parmar vs Sandipsinh Natwarsinh Jadav on 16 April, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/3537/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3537 of 2024

                      ==========================================================
                                               PIYUSHKUMAR LAXMANBHAI PARMAR
                                                            Versus
                                              SANDIPSINH NATWARSINH JADAV & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                      MR KEVAL G BRAHMBHATT (BAROT)(9900) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
                      MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                      ==========================================================

                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                         Date : 16/04/2025

                                                            ORAL ORDER

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-original claimant

against the judgment and award dated 31.07.2024 passed by the

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (main) & Principal District

Judge at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.582 of 2022,

wherein learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi for the appellant,

learned advocate Mr. Keval G. Brahmbhatt for the respondent nos.1

and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respondent

no.3-Insurance Company.








                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/3537/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025

                                                                                                               undefined

3. Brief facts narrated in the present First Appeal are as under:

3.1 On 04.05.2022, the claimant-appellant herein was riding

motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-23-BK-3758 with pillion rider. At

around 9:30 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding for Kanjoda from

Aadinar Chokdi, a Hyundai Car bearing registration no.GJ-21-R-3126

came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed with the motorcycle. Resultantly, the claimant fell down and

sustained fractures. The claimant was admitted in the Rudra Hospital

at Nadiad. FIR was filed against the driver of Hyundai Car. The

claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act claiming compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs.

3.2 Notices were served to opponents. Opponent nos.1 and 2

appeared and filed written statement at Exh.12. Opponent no.3

appeared and filed written statement at Exh.16. Issues were framed.

The claimant examined himself at Exh.22 and produced papers of

Hyundai Car, complaint, Panchanama of place of accident, disability

certificate, injury certificate, discharge certificate and other papers in

support of his case.




                      3.3     After considering the evidence, learned Tribunal found that the






                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/3537/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025

                                                                                                               undefined

claimant was negligent to the extent of 10% and driver of the Hyundai

Car was negligent to the extent of 90% in the occurrence of the

accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,61,975/- (Rs.5,13,305 Less

R.51,330/-) with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim

petition till its realization.

3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and award, the claimant-appellant herein has filed the present appeal

for enhancement of compensation.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant-original claimant has

submitted that challenge in the appeal is with regard to income and

non-consideration of prospective income. It is further submitted that

the claimant was aged about 17 years at the relevant point of time

and was doing of course of computer. The claimant had also taken

part in 400 mtrs. open sprint at Khel Mahakumbh and secured second

position at Taluka level. The Tribunal considered income of the

claimant at Rs.7,500/- per month. It is further submitted that the

claimant sustained fractures on both femur and was operated for the

same. It is further submitted that because of the accident, life of the

claimant as an athlete is ruined and he will not be able to pursue his

career in the field of sports. The disability was assessed at 17% on the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3537/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025

undefined

consent being given vide Exh.29. It is further submitted that

considering the aforesaid facts, income of the claimant be assessed

more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Except the above submissions, no

other submissions are canvassed by the learned advocate for the

appellant.

5. Per contra, learned advocate for the for the respondent no.3-

Insurance Company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has

awarded more compensation than the claimant was entitled to. It is

submitted that as per the Pan Card produced by the appellant at

Exh.27, the age of claimant was 17 years, 9 months and 12 days on the

date of the accident, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered

law down in the case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager,

the National Insurance Company Limited reported in (2014) 14 SCC

396. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded more compensation

than the appellant deserved. Learned advocate for the respondent-

Insurance Company has placed reliance upon decision in the cases of

Ajay Shantilal Thakor Versus Pravinbhai Rambhai Prmar reported in

2021 LawSuit (Guj) 5307 and Akshaykumar Alias Ankit

Deepakkumar Damor vs. Mitul Hashmukhlal Soni reported in 2023

LawSuit (Guj) 570.








                                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/3537/2024                                               ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025

                                                                                                                          undefined




                      5.1     It is submitted by learned advocate for the respondent-

Insurance Company that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while

considering the claim application of minor, has also considered the

decision of Master Mallikarjun (supra), and has awarded

compensation, accordingly.

6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned

advocates for the respective parties and also perused the record and

proceedings. It appears from the record that the appellant was aged

about 17 years, 9 months and 12 days on the date of accident and the

disability was consented to the extent of 17%. The question with

regard to the assessment of income in the present case is no more res

integra, in view of the decision of Master Mallikarjun (supra).

7. In the case of Ajay Shantilal Thakor (supra), the Co-ordinate

Bench has also considered the decision of Master Mallikarjun (supra)

and has observed as under:

"5. The error committed by the Tribunal could be immediately struck once the decision of the Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun (supra) is considered. In that, based on the extent of injuries, the Apex Court set down the guidelines to provide the extent of compensation to the injured minor on the basis of the extent of injuries. In paragraph 12 of the Master Mallikarjun (supra), the Supreme Court observed thus, "Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3537/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025

undefined

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; uputo 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 Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick." (Para 12)

5.1 In the present case, the permanent partial disability of the appellant is assessed 17% by the Tribunal. It therefore fell within the bracket of disability between 10% and 30%, therefore as per the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court, Rs.3,00,000/- could be awardable towards future loss of income, pain shock and suffering and special diet etc. in lump-sum and that is consolidated. Accordingly, for the amount of Rs.91,800/-, Rs.12,000/- and 7,000/- presently awarded by Tribunal towards future loss of income, pain shock and suffering and special diet, transportation and attendance, total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- would be suitable. As total entitlement to the appellant claimant accordingly to Rs.3,00,000/- in total is to be awarded as above, Rs.85,337/- towards treatment and medical bills awarded by the Tribunal shall become payable making total entitlement for the appellant to Rs.3,85,337 with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till realization."

8. In the present case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.4,61,975/- in favour of the claimant who is undisputedly minor on

the date of the accident. When the Tribunal has awarded just and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/3537/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025

undefined

reasonable compensation, it is not required to re-consider the income

and other aspects as it is considered in cases of the applicants who are

major. Appellant- original claimant has been adequately compensated,

it is not necessary to go into the question of non-consideration of

prospective income and the question of rates of minimum wages

prevailing on the date of accident.