[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Taral Rajeshbhai Naranbhai vs Ramjilal Hanuman Sahay Puniya on 5 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2221 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
TARAL RAJESHBHAI NARANBHAI
Versus
RAMJILAL HANUMAN SAHAY PUNIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 05/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By way of present First Appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act"), the appellant -
original claimant has assailed the impugned judgment and award
dated 28th October, 2024 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 52
of 2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "learned
Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly
allow the claim petition filed by the appellant - original claimant
and by way of present appeal, claimant has sought enhancement
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
of compensation.
2) The brief facts of the case of appellant are that, an accident
that took place on 19.08.2022 which involved the MV Trailer No.
RJ-52-GA-7705 which was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner by driver of opponent No. 1 which was also of the
ownership of opponent No.1 and which according to the claim
petition, was duly insured by opponent No.2, the Insurance
Company. In the said accident, claimant sustained fracture injury
and therefore, the appellant herein - claimant filed MACP No. 52
of 2023 wherein the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition by awarding compensation of Rs.10,14,200/-. However,
as the learned Tribunal did not consider future prospects of the
claimant and hence, present appeal is filed.
3) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kaash Thakkar for the
appellant and learned Advocate Ms. Dimple Thakkar appearing
for opponent No. 2 - the Insurance Company. Opponent Nos. 1
and 3, though duly served, have remained absent. It is further
noted that the Insurance Company, Reliance General Industries,
is otherwise not served with regard to the liability.
4) Learned advocate for the appellant has mainly assailed the
judgment on the ground that the claimant was 37 years of age
and had suffered 37% permanent disability, and even as per
consent, 37% disability is required to be considered. The learned
Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the claimant as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
₹12,000/-, considering that he was engaged in agricultural and
masonry work. However, while computing the compensation, the
learned Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospective
income. On this limited ground relating to quantum, particularly
the non-grant of future prospective income, he has requested to
first allow the present appeal.
5) Hence, with the consent of the learned advocates for both
parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing, as the issue is
required to be decided within a narrow compass.
6) Upon perusal of the judgment and award passed by the
learned Tribunal, it appears that the claimant, along with the
other claimants, had filed the claim petition seeking
compensation. In the present appeal, only the aspect of quantum
has been challenged. Accordingly, this Court has confined its
consideration to the said limited issue, which falls within a
narrow compass.
7) At the time of the incident, the claimant was 37 years of
age. Though he did not produce any evidence to prove his
income, the learned Tribunal, considering the prevailing rates of
minimum wages and the nature of his work in agriculture and
masonry, assessed his monthly income at ₹12,000/-. In the
absence of documentary evidence, such assessment appears to
be just and proper for the purpose of awarding compensation
under the Motor Vehicles Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
8) Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the assessment
of 37% permanent disability is not in dispute between the
parties, and the said disability of the body as a whole has been
rightly considered for determining just and proper compensation.
The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15. It further
appears that the reference to the multiplier of 18 in the
judgment is a typographical error, as the correct multiplier to be
applied for a person aged 37 years, as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121, is '15', which has in fact been applied in the
computation. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to
consider the future prospective income, as mandated by the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
9) In view of the settled principles, 40% future prospective
income is required to be added. If such future rise of 40% is
considered, the additional amount would come to ₹4,800/- per
month, thereby enhancing the monthly income from ₹12,000/- to
₹16,800/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of
₹7,99,200/-. However, if the monthly income of ₹16,800/-, 37%
permanent disability, and the multiplier of 15 are applied, the
amount of compensation would come to ₹11,18,880/-. Thus, the
claimant would be entitled to an enhanced amount of ₹3,19,680/-
towards future loss of income. Rest of the impugned judgment
and award is not required to be interfered with.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this
Tribunal Court
Future loss of Rs.7,99,200/- Rs.11,18,880/-
income
Actual loss of Rs.48,000/- Rs.48,000/-
income
Pain, shock and Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
suffering
Special diet, Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
attendant
charges and
transportation
Medical Rs.92,000/- Rs.92,000/-
Expenses
Total Rs.10,14,200/- Rs.13,33,880/-
Compensation including additional
amount of
Rs.3,19,680/-
10) In view of the above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of ₹10,14,200/-, and since the original claimant is
entitled to an enhancement of ₹3,19,680/-, the total
compensation payable comes to ₹13,33,880/-, which shall carry
interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
11) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award
dated 27.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi), Banaskantha, in MAC Petition No.52 of 2023
stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment
and award remains unaltered. Appellant is entitled and awarded
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
the enhanced amount of Rs.3,19,680/- 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. Thereafter, Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount
of compensation (lying in the FDR with the Tribunal including the
enhanced compensation) with accrued interest thereon, if any, to
the claimant which shall be deposited by A/c Payee Cheque/
NEFT/ RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
12) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the
deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse
the amount accordingly.
13) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
GARVITA
