Gujarat High Court
Deva Pachan Rabari vs Driver Of Truck on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3555 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEVA PACHAN RABARI
Versus
DRIVER OF TRUCK & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants
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 17.08.2013 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Kutchh in MACP No.35
of 2000.
2. It is the case of the appellant that on 01/05/1999, the
applicant was driving Truck No. GJ-12-T-7033 from
Gundiya (Maharashtra) towards Bhavnagar (Gujarat) in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
the capacity of a driver and was driving the vehicle
properly and cautiously. At that time, another truck
bearing registration No. MP-23-DA-5469 was coming
from the opposite direction, and its driver was driving in
a rash and negligent manner, violating traffic rules. He
lost control over the steering of his vehicle and came
onto the wrong side, colliding with the appellant's truck.
As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained
serious injuries.
3. Vide the said impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred
by the present appellants - original claimants under
Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding the present
appellants- original claimants entitled to an amount of
Rs.48,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual
realization with proportionate costs.
4. This Court vide order dated 10.01.2014 noticing the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the
appellants- original claimants and the grounds raised in
the appeal, has admitted the appeal.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul S Shah, appearing for the
appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment, has
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding inadequate compensation to the claimants 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 appellant as well
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
as period of actual loss of income, and has overlooked
the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in relation to the assessment of future
prospects, application of appropriate multiplier, and
grant of compensation under the various heads such as
PSS, Special diet and attendant charges and medical
expenses. He has further relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Vs.
Mohan reported in 2018(0) AIJEL-SC 61861 and
decision of this Court in First Appeal No.765 of 2007
with First Appeal No.195 of 2007 dated 05.11.2014
(Dhondiba Tukaram Donagare Vs. Shaikh Jakirbhai
Sherbhai) on the issue of future prospect.
6. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a
meager and unrealistic amount under various heads
without considering the financial dependency of the
family members and the socio-economic background of
the appellant. The learned counsel has urged that the
compensation awarded is not just, fair, and reasonable,
and is liable to be enhanced in accordance with the
settled legal principles. Learned counsel therefore prays
for enhancement of the compensation amount by
reassessing the same in accordance with law.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar appearing for the
respondent no.3- Insurance Company has placed
reliance upon the findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal and vehemently argued that the compensation
must be awarded as just, proper and reasonable and not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
higher side and further submitted that learned Tribunal,
after appreciating the materials available on record,
awarded the compensation under each head is just,
proper and reasonable and not required to interfere and
lastly prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties on
the disputes between the parties in narrow compass and
perused impugned judgment and award, more
particularly, the findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal while considering the issue of quantum of
compensation.
9. As regards the income of the appellant is concerned, the
appellant was working as a driver at the time of the
accident. The tribunal has erred in assessing Rs.2000/-
towards the income of the appellant. Considering the
nature of work with which the appellant is associated, it
would be just and proper to assess the income of the
appellant Rs.3000/- per month.
10. The appellant has produced the disability certificate at
exhibit 44, wherein the disability was assessed as 70%,
however, both the parties consented to assess the
disability at 20%. Hence, as the disability was assessed
by consent, there is no dispute raised in that regard and
20% disability is required to be applied while calculating
the compensation.
11. As regards future rise of income is concerned, the age of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
the appellant, the injury sustained by him and that he
was working as a driver at the time of the accident,
which is a skilled profession is required to be taken in to
consideration. From the evidence, the said injury has
affected the future earning capacity of the appellant.
Considering the nature of his work and injury sustained
and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan (supra) and decision of this
Court in the aforesaid case i.e., First Appeal No.765 of
2007 with First Appeal No.195 of 2007 and in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay
Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 noticing the age
of the deceased as 24 years, as accepted by the Tribunal
by considering the evidence on record, 40% amount can
be considered towards the future prospects of the
deceased. Thus, the income would be
(Rs.3000*40%=1200) Rs.4200/- after the calculation of
the future rise.
12. Noticing the fact that the deceased was aged 24 years at
the time of 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 scheduled
prescribed, the Tribunal has erred in applying the
multiplier of 16. The multiplier is required to be
considered as 18 in the facts of the case. Thus, the
future loss benefit is determined as Rs.4200/-
*12*18*20% (Multiplier) which comes to Rs.1,81,440/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
13. So far as the compensation under the other heads such
as pain, shock and suffering and special diet, attendant
charges and transportation are concerned, considering
the facts of the case, nature of injuries, medical
treatment and physical pain and the emotional trauma
endured by the appellant, a substantial enhancement
under the abovementioned heads are deserves to be
enhanced. Accordingly, Rs.25000/- towards Pain, Shock
and Sufferings and Rs.15000/- towards Special Diet,
Attendance Charges and Transportation are required to
be given. The medical expenses of Rs.5000/- awarded by
the tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is
required under that head.
14. As per the evidences placed on record, the tribunal has
rightly arrived at a finding and assessed the contributory
negligency of 50% of the both, appellant as well as
respondent nos.4 and 5.
15. Therefore, original claimants - appellants herein are
entitled to enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
Compensation As per award As awarded by this
under challenge Court (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Actual salary/ 2000/- 3000/-
income
Prospective - 1200/- (40%)=
income Rs.4200/-
Disability 20% (Rs.400) 20% (Rs. 840)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Future Loss 400/-*12*16 840/-*12*18
= Rs.76,800/- = Rs.1,81,440/-
Pain, Shock and Rs.25000/-
Rs.5000/-
Suffering
Actual Loss of Rs.6,000/-
Rs.4000/-
Income
Medical 5000/-
5000/-
Expenses
Special Diet, 6000/- 15000/-
Attendant
Charges and
Transportation
Total Rs.96800/- Rs.2,32,440/-
Compensation
Negligency 50% 48,400 1,16,220/-
Enhanced - Rs.1,16,220/- minus
compensation Rs.48,400/-
=Rs.67,820/-
16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and
award dated 17.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Kutchh in MACP No.35 of 2000
hereby modified. The appellants- original claimant are
held entitled to compensation of an amount of
Rs.1,16,220/-. Since by impugned judgment and award
the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.48,400/-, the
appellants shall be entitled to enhanced amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.67,820/- (Rs.1,16,220-
- Rs.48,400/-) with interest at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of filing of claim petition till its actual
realization. The respondents - original opponents no.4
and 5 are held jointly and severally liable to pay such
enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate
costs and interest.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3555/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. R&P be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if
received.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
