Gujarat High Court
Sashikantbhai Kanaiyalal J0Shi vs Sureshbhai Pasabhai Mali on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 744 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SASHIKANTBHAI KANAIYALAL J0SHI
Versus
SURESHBHAI PASABHAI MALI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 07/08/2025
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 11.12.2013 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Banaskantha in MACP
No.30 of 2001.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the appellant that on
13.07.2000 at about 9.30 pm while he was walking and
pushing his bicycle by hand on his way from the
Government Colony, Palanpur to Panser, a scooter
bearing registration no. GJ 2 E 6189 came from behind
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
and hit the appellant, causing him serious injuries and
filed the aforesaid claim petition for compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally.
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
appellant- original claimant entitled to an amount of
Rs.2,55,780/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum
from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual
realization with proportionate costs.
4. This Court vide order dated 06.05.2014 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. Hiren Modi, 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
as period of actual loss of income. As the claimant was
working in a Software Company and earning Rs.10,000/-
per month, the income of the claimant ought to have
considered Rs.10000/- instead of Rs.5000/- per month by
the tribunal. That, the tribunal has overlooked the
settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Supreme Court in relation to calculation of future loss,
application of appropriate multiplier and grant of
compensation under the various heads such as PSS,
Special diet and attendant charges and medical
expenses.
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. Vibhuti Nanavati, 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
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 has produced Pension Card at exhibit 40.
the appellant was retired and was working in a software
company and by was also giving private tuition.
However, no income proof to the same has been
produced by the appellant. Hence, the tribunal has
rightly assessed Rs.5000/- per month income of the
appellant and it calls for no interference.
10. The appellant has produced the disability certificate at
exhibit 31, wherein the disability was assessed as 49.3%,
however, both the parties consented to assess the
disability at 23%. Hence, as the disability was assessed
by consent, there is no dispute raised in that regard and
23% disability is required to be applied while calculating
the compensation.
11. As regards future rise of income is concerned, the age of
the appellant, the injury sustained by him and that he
was working in a Software Company after retirement, is
required to be taken in to consideration. Considering the
nature of his work and injury sustained 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 58 years, 10% amount can be
considered towards the future prospects of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
deceased. Thus, the income would be
(Rs.5000*10%=500) Rs.5500/- after the calculation of
the future rise.
12. Noticing the fact that the deceased was aged 58 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 5. The multiplier is required to be
considered as 9 in the facts of the case. Thus, the future
loss benefit is determined as Rs.5500/-*12*9*23% which
comes to Rs.1,36,620/-.
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.55,000/- towards Pain, Shock
and Sufferings and Rs.35,000/- towards Special Diet,
Attendance Charges and Transportation are required to
be given. The medical expenses of Rs.1,06,780/- awarded
by the tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is
required under that head.
14. Therefore, original claimants - appellants herein are
entitled to enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Compensation As per award As awarded by this
under challenge Court (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Actual salary/ 5000/- 5000/-
income
Prospective - 500/- (10%)=
income Rs.5500/-
Disability 23% (Rs.400) 23% (Rs. 1265)
Future Loss 5000/-*12*5 1265/-*12*9
= Rs.69,000/- = Rs.1,36,620/-
Pain, Shock and
Rs.30000/- Rs.55000/-
Suffering
Actual Loss of
Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
Income
Medical
1,06,780/- 1,06,780/-
Expenses
Special Diet, 20000/- 35000/-
Attendant
Charges and
Transportation
Total Rs.2,55,780/- Rs.3,63,400/-
Compensation
Enhanced - Rs.3,63,400/- minus
compensation Rs.2,55,780/-
=Rs.1,07,620/-
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and
award dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Banaskantha in MACP No.30 of
2001 hereby modified. The appellants- original claimant
are held entitled to compensation of an amount of
Rs.3,63,400/-. Since by impugned judgment and award
the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,55,780/-,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,07,620/- (Rs.363400
- Rs.2,55,780/-) with interest at the rate of 8% on the
enhanced amount 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. R&P be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if
received.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
