Gujarat High Court
Sangitaben @ Sumitaben Sanjaybhai ... vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 22 April, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1725 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================
SANGITABEN @ SUMITABEN SANJAYBHAI SAVANI
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
==========================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Defendant
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 22/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - original claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as
"the Tribunal") vide impugned judgment and award dated 23.03.2018
passed in M.A.C.P. No.271 of 2003, whereby the Tribunal has partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.14,50,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
against the claim of Rs.50,00,000/-.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the original claimant -
appellant herein along with her husband and other family members
was travelling from Bhavnagar to Surat in S.T. Bus bearing
registration No.GJ-18-V-7178 and when the bus reached at Village:
Chamardi and Valbhipur near Muglanimata Temple, Taluka: Valbhipur,
District Bhavnagar, due to sudden vomiting, the claimant got her
head outside the window of the bus and at that time on account of
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the S. T. Bus, the head of
the original claimant dashed with the other vehicle, due to which, she
sustained serious injury. Thereafter, immediately, the claimant was
taken to nearby hospital at Valbhipur, but serious condition of the
claimant, she advised to take at Bhavnagar for treatment. On
account of the vehicular accident, the husband of the original
claimant has lodged the complaint at Valbhipur Police Station against
the driver of the offending vehicle and the same was registered as
C.R.No.I-4/2003. Hence, the appellant - original claimant has filed
claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation at
Rs.50,00,000/-.
2.1 Initially, the claim petition was filed for Rs.5,00,000/- and
subsequently thereafter, it got enhanced upto Rs.50,00,000/- vide
order passed below application at Exhibit 51. Initially, the claim
petition was filed by the claimant through her husband being guardian
of the claimant, but during the pendency of the proceedings, the
husband has divorced the claimant and, therefore, the mother of the
claimant had represented the claim petition being guardian and next
friend of the claimant. That the claimant has sustained injury in a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
nature of paraplegia and her lower limb was completely paralyzed,
she lost her control of the natural calls and she is unable to take food
at her own. That the claimant has produced plethora of documentary
evidence consisting of medical report, medical bills and medical
expert opinion and other relevant documents for proving her case
before the Tribunal. The respondent has filed written statement and
objected the claim petition.
2.2 After considering the submissions and evidence on record, the
Tribunal has framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the applicant proves that she sustained injuries due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle,
involved in this accident?
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation " If yes,
what amount and from whom?
(3) What order and award?
2.3 The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence
tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- under the different heads as
against the claim of Rs.50,00,000/-.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum awarded by
the Tribunal, the original claimant has preferred the present first
appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
4. The present appeal came to be admitted by this Court (Coram:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Hon'ble Mr.Justice K. M. Thaker and Hon'ble Ms.Justice Sangeeta K.
Vishen) on 30.04.2019.
5. Heard Mr.Hiren Modi, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - Corporation.
6. Mr.Modi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant
has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of
appeal and has submitted that the claimant has preferred an
application for early disposal of the present appeal due to physical
condition of the claimant and pressed for early final hearing and
disposal.
6.1 Mr.Modi, learned counsel has submitted that the claimant has
produced sufficient evidence with regard to prove the quantum before
the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal has not considered the same in its
true and proper perspective while passing the impugned judgment
and award and awarded only Rs.14,50,000/- towards compensation
which is on lower side. He has submitted that the Tribunal has also
not properly appreciated the medical evidence while awarding future
loss of income, future medical treatment and other ancillary charges
towards attendance charges, special diet and also not considered the
fact that the claimant was also married prior to the date of accident,
who has lost the opportunity of motherhood as the husband has given
divorce to her due to physical condition. He has submitted that in
view of the above, the future prospect of the claimant is completely in
dark and she is living at mercy of her parents and now, they are also
older and through their complete assistance the claimant is surviving
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
and, therefore, appropriate amount ought to have been awarded by
the Tribunal under different heads. He has submitted that the
respondent has neither produced any cogent and valid evidence nor
examined the driver of the offending vehicle to prove the negligence
on the part of the claimant and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
decided 100% negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, but has
not considered the same while awarding the amount under different
heads. He has submitted that as per the earlier calculation, the
claimant was entitled to Rs.40,46,000/- towards compensation and
now as per the latest calculation, the claimant is entitled to
Rs.50,34,000/- towards compensation.
6.2 In support of his submissions, Mr.Modi, learned counsel has
relied upon the following decisions:-
(1) Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and another,
2024 (12) JT 623 : 2024 (0) ACJ 2731;
(2) Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, 2020 (4) SCC 413;
(3) Kirti and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2021 (2) SCC
166;
(4) Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and others, 2022 (13)
SCC 790;
(5) K. S. Muralidhar Vs. R. Subbulakshmi and another, AIR 2025
SC 70;
(6) Kumari Laxmishree Vs. The Managing Director, KSRCTC Depot,
Bengaluru, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No. 4493 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025;
(7) Atul Tiwari Vs. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, AIR 2025 SC 574;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
6.3 Mr.Modi, learned counsel has submitted that in view of the
aforesaid decisions, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and
the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified to the
extent.
7. Per contra, Mr.Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for
respondent - Corporation has supported the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that so far as the
income of the claimant is concerned, there is no cogent and proper
proof or evidence led by the appellant about her income and even
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and,
therefore, no interference is called for. He has submitted that the
factum of accident itself is in cloud and there was no sufficient
evidence produced by the appellant with regard to involvement of the
other vehicle and as per the averments of the husband of the
claimant, the claimant herself is negligent and because of her own
negligence, the claimant had sustained injury and, therefore, the
Tribunal has not considered this aspect while awarding the amount of
compensation under the different heads. He has submitted that the
prayer for enhancement sought for by the appellant in the present
appeal cannot be considered as she herself is negligent and
considering her negligence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He
has submitted that the Tribunal, after considering the factum of the
case, medical case papers, necessary evidence and evaluating the
evidence and considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as well as this Court, has rightly passed the impugned judgment and
award and awarded just and adequate compensation and, therefore,
the amount of compensation is not required to be enhanced. He has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
submitted that so far as the FIR is concerned, the same has been
registered at the behest of the husband of the claimant and though
the husband was not examined, the contents of the FIR are required
to be considered as it is and as per the contents of the FIR, the
appellant herself is negligent to the accident and considering her
negligence, she is not at all entitled for any enhancement of
compensation.
8. Having considered the averments made in the appeal,
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the
sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the record and
proceedings, it appears that the respondent has not challenged the
said aspect before the Tribunal by examining the husband who is the
author of the FIR nor examined the driver of the bus nor examined
any witness in support of their contention and, therefore the Tribunal
has rightly considered the said aspect while dealing with the
submission of the respondent in paras - 10, 11 and 12 of the
impugned judgment and award. It appears that the Tribunal has
specifically observed that the evidence led by the claimant has not
been rebutted by the respondent by producing any contrary evidence.
Neither the driver of the bus has been examined nor any other aspect
regarding happening of the accident has been brought on record.
Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent is rightly dealt with by the Tribunal. In light of the
submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and on appreciating the evidence recorded by the
Tribunal and considering the various decisions cited by both the sides,
the present appeal requires to be decided.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
9. On perusal of the evidence and the record produced along with
the paper book and on examining the same, we agree that the
contents of the FIR were not proved before the Tribunal nor
respondent has examined the driver of the offending vehicle, who can
give actual and clear picture of the accident in question. However,
unfortunately in this case, the driver of the S.T. Bus did not come
forward and stab into the witness box and, therefore, the contention
raised on behalf of the claimant is required to be appreciated in light
of the surrounding circumstances.
10. While deciding the present appeal, we have gone through the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in
various decisions - (1) Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon
and another, 2024 (12) JT 623 : 2024 (0) ACJ 2731; (2) Kajal Vs.
Jagdish Chand and others, 2020 (4) SCC 413; (3) Kirti and others Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2021 (2) SCC 166; (4) Pappu Deo Yadav
Vs. Naresh Kumar and others, 2022 (13) SCC 790; (5) K.S. Muralidhar
Vs. R. Subbulakshmi and another, AIR 2025 SC 70; (6) Kumari
Laxmishree Vs. The Managing Director, KSRCTC Depot, Bengaluru,
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2025
dated 05.03.2025; (7) Atul Tiwari Vs. Regional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2025 SC 574; (8) Vijaykumar Babulal
Modi, 2012 (1) GLH 738; (9) Abhimanyu Partap Singh Vs. Namita
Sekhon & another, (2022) 8 SCC 489; (10) Divya Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2022 INSC 1108; (11) New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand, 2025 INSC 15; (12)
Seema Rani & Others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors., in
2025 INSC 192; (13) Shyam Prasad Nagalla & Ors. Vs. The Andhra
Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation & Ors., 2025 INSC 193;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
(14) Shivaleela and others Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd and others, 2025 INSC 357; (15) Gudivada Seshagiri
Rao Vs. Gudivada Ashalatha and another, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 195;
(16) Jitendra Vs. Sadiya and others, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 174; (17)
Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited and another, (2023) 3 SCC 439; (18) Master Ayush Vs. Branch
Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited another,
(2022) 7 SCC 738.
11. That whether this Court requires any interference in the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal or not;
whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
requires to be enhanced or not and whether the Tribunal has
committed any error while awarding the amount of compensation by
the Tribunal or not are the only issues involved in the appeal.
Considering the aspect of nature of injury sustained by the appellant,
it appears that the appellant got married at the age 22 years and
because of the vehicular accident and permanent disability, the
husband has given divorce to her. It is an admitted fact that original
claimant is a housewife and, therefore, her notional income is
required to be considered as in the present case, the Tribunal has
considered the notional income of Rs.2500/- per month against
Rs.4000/- as prayed for by the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal has
considered the future loss of income at Rs.5,40,000/- and actual loss
of income at Rs.2,00,000/-. So far as the medical bills and other
relevant expenses are concerned, the Tribunal, by considering the
documentary evidence at Exhibit 78, 83 and 86, has awarded
Rs.2,15,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has also
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards Special diet, Rs.1,00,000/- towards
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
pain, shock and suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of
life, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospect and Rs.95,000/-
towards future medical expenses and in all Rs.14,50,000/- as
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the recent
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Rajpoot
Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2025 SC 1250, we are of the opinion that the
present appeal deserves to be allowed and the amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be modified to the
extent. The physical condition of the claimant is an undisputed fact
and sufficient documentary evidence were produced before the
Tribunal is suggestive in the nature that the claimant is completely
paralyzed. Even the claimant lost control over her natural calls, for
which she need complete assistance for 24 hours and she is unable to
take food at her own and not able to move at her own. Under such
circumstances, the Tribunal through oversight has not considered
aforesaid aspect while awarding the amount of compensation under
the different heads which are required to be enhanced as per the
aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is required to be
considered the fact that the claimant is a housewife and therefore her
income is required to be considered as similar to pedestrian since she
is managing household affairs and hence, her work cannot be
compassionate. That the appellant got married at the age 22 years
and on account of the vehicular accident, her life is completely in
dark, the prospect of marriage is completely ruined and prospects of
motherhood is also lost and her whole future is lost which is not
compassionate in terms of money and due to permanent disability,
the husband has given divorce to the appellant. Considering the
physical condition of the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have
awarded just and adequate compensation and the beneficial
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
enactment for the purpose of giving immediate need and relief to the
claimant, the Tribunal has to consider the same. Therefore, we are of
the opinion that the amount of Rs.2500/- towards future loss of
income as considered by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced to
Rs.5,000/- per month multiplier by 12 which comes to Rs.60,000/- plus
25% future prospects rise as she is 22 years of age at the time of
accident and, therefore, Rs.75000/- multiplier by 18, which comes to
Rs.13,50,000/-. Considering the total 100% disability, the actual loss
of income of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, in our opinion,
the same remains as it is and no change is required to be made. So
far as the pain, shock and suffering is concerned, the amount
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/- is very meager, which
should be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. So far as the special diet,
transportation and attendance charges are concerned, Rs.1,00,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side which should be enhanced to
Rs.10,00,000/-. That Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards
the loss of amenities of life is on lower side, which is enhanced to
Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,15,000/- towards medical expenses remains as
it is. As far as the future medical expenses is concerned, the Tribunal
has awarded at Rs.95,000/-, which is on lower side and the same is
enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. So far as
loss of marriage prospect is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,00,000/-, however, considering the fact that the claimant was
aged about 22 years and she just got married before the date of
accident, on the contrary, the husband has given divorce to her and,
therefore, considering this fact, Rs.2,00,000/- should be awarded
under the head of loss of marriage prospect and loss of motherhood.
12. Normally, if anyone is suffering from travelling sickness, they
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
ought to have sit on the left side of the S.T. Bus and generally the
conductor is taking care of the situation and in such circumstances,
the conductor advise the passenger/s to sit on the left side of the Bus
with a view to avoid such kind of accident. However, in this case,
neither the conductor nor the driver has taken proper care or advise
the claimant and the claimant herself has put her head out of the
window of the right side. Therefore, in our opinion, the claimant has
not taken proper care and at least 10% negligence is also to be
considered on the part of the claimant, but there was no evidence on
record and more particularly the observations made by the Tribunal in
paras - 9, 10 and 11, we are of the opinion that no negligence is
fasten upon the claimant and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in
this regard deserves to be confirmed.
13. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the
appellant is entitled to get additional amount of compensation
considering the notional income of the original claimant at Rs.5,000/-
and appeal requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment and
award requires to be substituted by enhancing the amount of
compensation and, therefore, the compensation is enhanced under
the following heads:-
Monthly Income Rs.5000 National Insurance
Yearly Income 5000 x 12 Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay
= Rs.60000 Sethi (2017) 16 SCC
680 : AIR 2017 SC
Para 42 and 59
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Future Prospects (25%) 60000 +
15000 =
Rs.75000
Multiplier (18) 75000 x 18 Rs. 13,50,000
Permanent Disability Rs. 2,00,000 Arvind Kumar Mishra
(100%) Vs. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Paras 42 and 59
Medical Expenses Rs.2,15,000 Kajal Vs. Jagdish
Chand, (2020) 4 SCC
Future Loss of Medical Rs.5,00,000 413 : AIR 2020 SC
Loss of Marriage Rs.2,00,000 Para 19 and 25
Prospect
Special Diet and Rs.10,00,000 Sidram Vs. Divisional
Transportation Manager, United
India Insurance Ltd.
(2023) 3 SCC 439
Para 89
Pain, shock and Rs.5,00,000 K.S. Muralidhar Vs.
suffering R. Subbulakshmi and
another, AIR 2025
SC 70
Para 13 and 14
Loss of amenities Rs.3,00,000 Mohd. Sabeer alias
Shabir Hussain Vs.
Regional Manager,
U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation, (2022)
SCC Online SC 1701
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Para 23 and 26
Total Amount Rs.42,65,000
Less: Amount of Rs.14,50,000
compensation awarded
by the Tribunal
Additional Amount Rs.28,15,000
Accordingly a sum of Rs.28,15,000/- as additional compensation
requires to be awarded towards future loss of income, which is just
and reasonable compensation and the same is awarded in addition to
Rs.14,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellant is
entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.28,15,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till
its realization.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The
judgment and award dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal is hereby modified and in addition to what has been
awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.28,15,000/- as additional
amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded which
shall be from the date of filing claim petition till its realization. The
Insurance Company is directed to deposit additional amount of
compensation with 6% interest as early as possible within an outer
limit of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. After deposit of the additional amount of compensation, the
same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant through RTGS, after
proper verification. The bank account details shall be furnished by the
learned advocate for the claimant to the Nazir Department of the
Court concerned. The appellant is directed to pay deficit court fees, if
any, on the enhanced amount within one month from the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1725/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
receipt of certified copy of this order. The apportionment and order for
disbursement as made by the Tribunal in the operative portion of the
order shall hold good.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
