[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Navabhai Ramjibhai Rabari vs Ruggaram Maharam Devasi on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NAVABHAI RAMJIBHAI RABARI
Versus
RUGGARAM MAHARAM DEVASI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 22.01.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary), Himmatnagar in MACP No.655/2009, whereby the
learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,87,550/- as a
compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal are that on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
04.07.2009, the original claimant/appellant herein was travelling in
luxury bus bearing registration no.RJ-22-PA-1183 from Sanderav,
Rajasthan to Idar and when the said bus reached near Ambaji Road, in
the meantime, the respondent no.1 herein drove the said bus in rash
and negligent manner and dashed the said bus with truck bearing
registration no.RJ-5-GA-3830. In the said accident, the original
claimant/appellant herein sustained grievous injuries and other three
persons were also died. It is also the case of the appellant before the
learned Tribunal that in the said accident, the appellant sustained the
crush and fracture injury on the right hand and during treatment, his
right hand was amputated. At the time of accident, the claimant was
gainfully engaged in the work of animal husbandry and agriculture and
he was earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- per year from agricultural work
and a sum of Rs.1,30,150.15/- from animal husbandry and thereby
selling the milk to the dairy. It is also the case of the appellant/claimant
that at the time of accident, he was aged about 52 years. Therefore, he
filed the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-.
3. On being served with the summons of the claim petition, the
respondent no.3/insurance company of the luxury bus filed the written
statement at Exh.21, thereby denying the contents of the claim petition
in toto and prayed for rejection of the claim petition, while the
respondent no.6/insurance company of the truck filed the written
statement at Exh.23 and denied the factum of negligence and income of
the deceased-claimant and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.22:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
(1) Whether it is proved that the claimants sustained injuries on
account of rashness and negligence in driving on the part of the driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident?
(2) What amount, if any, claimants are entitled by way of compensation
and from which of the opponents?
(3) What order?
5. In order to prove his claim, the claimant had led the following oral
as well as documentary evidences on record:-
Sr. No. Particular Exh. No.
1. Affidavit in examination-in-chief and cross- 38
examination of claimant/appellant
2. Affidavit and examination in chief of Kantibhai 60
Kalabhai Thakarda and cross-examination
4. Injury certificate issued by Radhamohan Global 64
Hospital
5. Certificate of radiological examination conducted 65
by Radhamohan Global Hospital
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
11. Discharge summary of Radhamohan Global Hospital 71
12 Manual form of Radhamohan Global Hospital 72
13. Blood report of claimant/appellant conducted by 73, 83 & 84
Radhamohan Global Hospital
14 Bill and receipt issued by Radhamohan Global 74
Hospital
15. Service bill issued by Radhamohan Global Hospital 75
16. Pathological report 76 to 82
17. GHIOP Medical Stores bill for medicine 85 to 93
21. Certificate issued by Savgadh Diary Milk Co- 101
operative Society
22. Certificate issued by Lalpur Gram Panchayat 102
24. Form 7/12 104 to 107
6. The respondent no.3/insurance company has proved the copy of
policy of luxury bus at Exh.110, while the respondent no.6 filed the
pursis of compromise entered into between the respondent
no.3/insurance company and the claimant in other claim petitions at
Exhs.42 to 53 and copy of insurance policy of truck at Exh.96.
7. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.3,87,550/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 8%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The
learned Tribunal further held that the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are
jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award; however, the respondent
nos.4, 5 and 6 i.e. the driver and owner of the truck and the insurance
company of the truck were exonerated.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the original claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned
judgment on the point of quantum.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
10. Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original claimant/appellant vehemently submitted that the learned
Tribunal has not considered the evidence of income of the claimant on
record and assessed the income of the claimant/appellant at Rs.5,000/-
per month from all the sources of income. He further submitted that the
claimant/appellant was gainfully engaged in the occupation of
agriculture and animal husbandry; however, the learned Tribunal has
considered the income of Rs.5,000/- per month from both source of
income. He further submitted that in order to prove his income, the
claimant has proved on the record the extract of Form 7/12 at Exhs.104
to 107 and Form 8-A at Exh.103 to prove that he was engaged in
agricultural work at the time of accident. He further submitted that the
claimant has also got examined the Secretary of the Dairy in order to
prove that he was engaged in the animal rearing and selling the milk to
the dairy and thereby earning a sum of Rs.1,30,150.15/- per year. He
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
further submitted that the learned Tribunal has ignored all these
evidences and assessed the income of the original claimant/appellant at
lower side. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant has also placed the reliance upon the judgment of Shivaleela
Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
reported in 2025 (0) AIGEL-SC 74915.
11. He further submitted though it is on record that at the time of
accident, the claimant was aged about 52 years; however, the learned
Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the claimant. He
further submitted that 10% of the income ought to have been added to
the monthly notional income of the claimant on the account of future
prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that
though the claimant has sustained the grievous injury of fracture and
crush injury and resultantly, his right hand was amputated above the
elbow; however, the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of
Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain, shock and sufferings. In support of
his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed the reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case
of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC
70212 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court
rendered in the case of Khimaram Dhanaram Prajapati Vs.
Jagdishkumar Prajapati, reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247380.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- under
the head of transportation, special diet and attendant charges though,
the learned Tribunal has observed that the appellant was hospitalized
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
and took the treatment for a long period of six months, therefore, the
compensation awarded under this head is required to be enhanced. The
learned Tribunal has awarded the meager amount of Rs.30,000/- under
the head of future loss of income.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Nikunt K. Raval, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company of the
luxury bus vehemently submitted that the income of the appellant was
not proved on record, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly
considered the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month.
He further submitted that the the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the
multiplier of 11 as per age of the claimant. He further submitted that the
the claimant has sustained the disability of 38% body as a whole,
therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the functional
disability of the claimant as 30%. Thus, the learned Tribunal has
committed no error in awarding a sum of Rs.2,50,800/- under the head
of future loss of income. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal
considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment has rightly
awarded the compensation under the heads of pain, shock and
sufferings, transportation, special diet and attendant charges and the
actual loss of income. He submitted that there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgment and award, therefore, the present appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
14. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
issue of negligence is not under dispute. The appellant/original claimant
has challenged the award on the ground of quantum. In order to
establish the agricultural income, the original claimant/appellant has led
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
the documentary evidence at Exhs.104 to 107. Perusal of these
documents transpires that these are the extract of Form 7/12. From
these documents, it is evident that the father of the claimant is holding
the agricultural land in his name, therefore, it can be presumed that the
claimant would have been engaged in agricultural activities at the time
of accident. So far as the income from the animal husbandry is
concerned, it is on record that the annual income of the claimant by sale
of milk at the time of accident was Rs.1,30,150.15/-. In order to
establish the income from animal husbandry is concerned, the appellant
examined the Secretary of the Dairy where he was selling the milk. The
bills and receipts of payments have been proved on record at Mark
59/1. The Secretary of the Dairy i.e. PW-2-Kantibhai Kalabhai Thakarda
also corroborated the version of the claimant/appellant. He also proved
that during the year 2008-2009, the claimant had sold the milk of worth
Rs.1,15,587.48/- in the dairy and for the year 2008-2009, he sold the
milk worth Rs.1,30,150.15 paisa. The learned Tribunal having
considered these evidences on record, came to the conclusion that out
of the said amount, the claimant would have spent the some of the
amount in the fodder of the cows and buffaloes. Therefore, the net
income of the appellant/claimant would have been Rs.4,000/- per month
after deducting the expenses.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaleela Vs. Divisional
Manager (supra), considered the income from the agriculture at
Rs.15,000/- per month. At this juncture, it is to be noted that in the said
judgment, the claimant was holding a large parcel of land i.e. 9 acres
and 23 cents, but the case on hand is that the land stands in the name
of the father of the claimant and he was not having any agricultural land
but obviously, he would have helping his father in agricultural work.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
Thus, having considered the material on the record, it would be just and
proper if the income of the claimant from both sources is re-assessed at
Rs.8,000/- per month and accordingly, I re-assess the income of the
appellant at Rs.8,000/- per month.
16. It is on record that at the time of accident, the appellant/claimant
was aged about 52 years, therefore, in view the ratio of judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in AIR (2009) 6 SC 3104
and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in
2017 (16) SCC 680, the notional income is further required to be
enhanced by 10% on account of future prospects of the appellant/
claimant. Therefore, after adding 10% to the notional monthly income of
Rs.8,000/-, the monthly notional income would come to Rs.8,800/- i.e.
(8,000+8,000X10%) per month.
17. It is on record that appellant has proved the disability certificate
at Exh.96. Perusal of the disability certificate transpires that the
appellant/claimant sustained the crush injury on his right hand.
Resultantly, his right hand was amputated above elbow; however, the
learned Tribunal has considered the permanent functional disability of
30% for determining the future loss of income. Considering the nature of
work of the claimant at the time of accident, in my considered view, the
functional disability would not be less than 50%. Thus, considering the
multiplier of 11 at the time of accident as the claimant was aged about
52 years and functional disability of 50%, the future loss of income
would come to Rs.5,80,800/- i.e. (8,800X50%X12X11).
18. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
the head of pain, shock and sufferings. It is undisputed fact that the
claimant remained under treatment for a period of six months as he
sustained the crush injury in right hand and his right hand above the
elbow was amputated. Thus, considering the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant and having regard to the ratio of judgment of
Honble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir
Hussain (supra) and the judgment of the Coordinate bench of this High
Court rendered in case of Khimaram Dhanaram Prajapati (supra), it
would be just and proper if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the
head of pain, shock and sufferings and hence accordingly, the
compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal under the
head of pain, shock sufferings is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.
18.1 The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.36,750/- under
the head of medical expenses. Perusal of the record transpires that the
claimant/appellant has proved the bills for medical treatment and
expenses at Exhs.85 to 93. After considering the bill produced on
record, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.36,750/-,
therefore, no interference is required under this head.
19. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under
the head of transportation, special diet and attendant charges. It is on
record that the claimant had sustained the grievous injuries and his right
hand was amputated above the elbow and he remained hospitalized for
a considerable period. Thus, having regard to the nature of injuries and
period of treatment, it would be just and proper if the compensation of
Rs.20,000/- awarded under this head is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and
accordingly, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
20. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under
the head of actual loss of income. Considering the notional income of
Rs.5,000/- per month, this Court has re-assessed the income at
Rs.8,800/- per month, therefore, the claimant/appellant shall be entitled
for a compensation under the head of actual loss of income for six
months at the rate of Rs.8,800/- per month, which would come to
Rs.52,800/- i.e. (8,800X6).
21. In view of the above discussions, the claimant shall be entitled for
the following amount of compensation under the following heads:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Future loss of income 5,80,800/-
2. Pain, shock and sufferings 1,00,000/-
3. Transportation, special diet and 50,000/-
attendant charges
4. Actual loss of income 52,800/-
5. Medical expenses 36,750/-
Total 8,20,350/-
22. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,87,550/-,
therefore, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for additional amount
of compensation of Rs.4,32,800/- i.e. (8,20,350-3,87,550). The learned
Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
Therefore, the claimant appellant shall also be entitled for interest at the
rate of 8% per annum on additional amount of compensation from the
date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
23. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal stands
allowed. The respondent no.3/insurance company shall deposit the
additional amount of compensation along with interest within six weeks
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1135/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
from today. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal
shall disburse the amount to the original claimant after deducting deficit
of Court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any, lying
deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted
to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. No order as to costs.
24. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
