[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Ramjibhai Mahida vs Kiritkumar Punjabhai Chauhan on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2433 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
√
============================================
DILIPBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAHIDA
Versus
KIRITKUMAR PUNJABHAI CHAUHAN & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 22.10.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1657 of
2010, the appellant - original claimant preferred present appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellant -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
original Claimant. Though the respondent no.2 duly served but
remained absent. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellant - original claimant that on
08.04.2010, the appellant Dilipbhai Mahida (who shall hereinafter
be referred to as "injured") left his house and went to his job in ST
Bus and as the injured has to change the bus he departed the bus
and waiting for another bus near Akshar Chowk, at that time at
around 09:00 hours in the morning the opponent no.1 driving ST
Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-Y-2164, in full speed and in rash and
negligent manner and hit the appellant who was standing far from
the road. Due to which the appellant fell down and his stomach was
cut by iron sheet of the bus and also sustained other serious
injuries as a result of which the injured fell unconscious. Therefore,
the appellant had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After
appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal
was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has
committed error in considering income of the appellant as
Rs.4,000/- per month however the Tribunal ought to have consider
Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has also committed
error in awarding meagre amount towards pain, shock and
suffering despite the appellant sustained grievous accidental
injuries and he was hospitalized for more than 1 years and for
continuous 2 years he remained under treatment and medical
observation, considering the said fact the Tribunal ought to have
allowed Rs.3 lacs towards pain, shock and suffering. The Tribunal
has also committed error in allowing only Rs.15,000/- under the
head of Special diet and transportation instead of Rs.1,00,000/-
considering grievous nature of injuries and prolong period of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
recovery. The Tribunal has also committed error by allowing only
Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and loss of
sexual life and loss of enjoyment of life instead the Tribunal ought
to have considered Rs.3 lacs under the head of loss of amenities
and loss of sexual life and loss of enjoyment of life as he sustained
injuries at a very young age of 37 years and the appellant is 100%
sexually disabled due to the accident. Hence, he has requested to
allow the present appeal.
5) The respondent no.2 duly served but remained absent and as the
factum of accident is not challenged by the respondent no.2 the
learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding sole
negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Now the
appeal is filed on limited ground qua enhancement of quantum
hence the appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass. It
appears that the learned Tribunal has observed the age of claimant
as 37 years 4 months and 20 days and considered 38 years at the
time of accident. Further, as the appellant failed to prove his
income as Rs.5,000/- per month however in absence of cogent
evidence the learned Tribunal has considered the income of
Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal has further considered 50% as future
prospect income which is required to be 40%, however, considering
the nature of injuries and period of treatment this Court is of the
view that as there is minor variation in income this Court is not
going to disturb the said finding of the learned Tribunal. Moreover,
the learned Tribunal has considered disability of 10% and multiplier
of 15 and awarded Rs.1,08,000/- under the head of loss of future
income which as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] is just and proper and no interference of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
this Court is required. Further, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.2,54,000/- towards Medical Expense and also awarded
Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expense which are just and
proper as no evidence is produced on record and in absence of
material the Tribunal has not committed any error while awarding
the above heads.
6) However, considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment
and recovery, younger age and complications to the injured
claimant, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has
committed error while considering pain, shock and suffering only
Rs.75,000/- which is required to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- i.e.
additional amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of PSS.
Further, as per the evidence it appears that the appellant remained
under treatment for 1 year and 9 months and the Tribunal has
considered only Rs.40,000/- towards actual loss, however, this
Court is of the view that the said amount is required to be
enhanced to Rs.84,000/- (i.e. Rs.4,000/- X 21 months) i.e.
additional amount of Rs.44,000/- under the head of actual
loss. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards
attendant which is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- i.e.
additional amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of attendant.
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards special diet and
transportation which is required to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- i.e.
additional amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of special
diet and transportation. The learned Tribunal has awarded only
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of sexual life and
loss of enjoyment of life which is required to be enhanced to
Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the
head of loss of amenities and loss of sexual life and loss of
enjoyment of life.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
7) As discussed above, the appellant - injured - original claimant is
entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of future income Rs.1,08,000/- Rs.1,08,000/-
Medical expense Rs.2,54,000/- Rs.2,54,000/-
Actual loss of income Rs.40,000/- Rs.84,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.44,000/-
Attendant Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.25,000/-
Special diet and Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/-
transportation including additional
amount of Rs.10,000/-
Pain, shock and Rs.75,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
suffering including additional
amount of Rs.25,000/-
Loss of amenities and Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
loss of sexual life and including additional
loss of enjoyment of amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
life
Future medical Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
treatment
Total compensation Rs.6,42,000/- Rs.8,46,000/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.2,04,000/-
8) The claim petition was restricted upto Rs.6,00,000/- and the
learned Tribunal while relying upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal
Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 274, has awarded total compensation of Rs.6,42,000/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
9) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.6,42,000/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.2,04,000/- (Rs.6,42,000/-
- Rs.8,46,000/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
10) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated
22.10.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux.), Vadodara, in MAC Petition No.1657 of 2010 stands modified
to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains
unaltered. The respondent no.2 - Corporation shall deposit the said
additional amount of Rs.2,04,000/- along with interest as
awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and
proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
11) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
12) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
