Gujarat High Court
Shaileshbhai Ramubhai Ahir vs Mohammad Haidarali Sabirali on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1113/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1113 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
SHAILESHBHAI RAMUBHAI AHIR
Versus
MOHAMMAD HAIDARALI SABIRALI & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,6
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 19/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Dhruve, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate for the appellant
- original claimant. Mr. Tanmay Karia, learned advocate has
appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3 - insurance
company.
2. The notice issued upon the respondent nos.1 and 2 is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1113/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
awaiting service. Notice issued upon the respondent nos.4
and 6 is duly served and respondent no.5 is unserved.
Noticing the limited issued involved and the contesting party
being represented by the learned advocate on record for the
respondent no.3, the present appeal is taken-up for final
hearing in absence of the rest of the respondents.
3. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the original
claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and award dated 22nd March, 2024 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Bharuch in MACP no.702
of 2013 (old MACP no.708 of 2009). By the said impugned
judgment and award, the learned Judge has though partly
allowed the aforesaid claim petition preferred by the original
claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, has awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,45,850/- with interest @ 9%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization. However, has not entertained the claim sought
for to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, the present appeal
at the instance of the original claimant.
4. Looking to the limited issue involved, this Court has not
examined the issue of negligence, more particularly noticing
the fact that no appeal is filed by the contesting respondent -
insurance company.
5. At the outset, learned advocate has invited my attention
to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while
determining the quantum of compensation under the different
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1113/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
heads. Learned advocate had submitted that the applicant
had sustained bodily injuries on the right foot and was
working as driver in a private company and earning income of
Rs.4,500/- per month. She had further pointed-out that the
applicant was hospitalized for 10 days and was advised for
follow-up check-up. After the treatment, the applicant was
advised to take rest for six months.
5.1 By referring to the findings and reasons assigned, the
learned advocate has submitted that the Tribunal, in absence
of any proof of income being produced on record, has
considered the income of the injured applicant as Rs.3,000/-
per month. She has further pointed-out that the disability
certificate has been produced on record at Exh.45. The
disability was agreed as 11%. According to the learned
advocate, considering the age of the applicant being 32 years
at the time of accident, the Tribunal has rightly applied the
multiplier of 16. The Tribunal having noted the aforesaid
factors has assessed future loss of income as Rs.63,360/-
(Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 16 x 11% disability). However, she has
pointed-out that the Tribunal committed gross error in
ignoring the settled legal position that in absence of proof, the
yardstick of standard wages notified by State Government can
be looked upon as guiding factor. Looking to the minimum
wages prevailing at the time of accident and the undisputed
fact that the claimant was a driver of the car, the Tribunal
ought to have considered Rs.4,400/- per month as his income.
She has further pointed-out that the Tribunal has committed
gross error in not considering the aforesaid income of the
injured applicant while determining the amount of future loss
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1113/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
of income. She has therefore urged this Court to enhance the
amount of compensation by considering the income of
Rs.4,400/- per month and considering the age of the applicant,
the future rise be extended at the rate of 40%. By making
aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has urged to enhance
the amount of future loss of income to the tune of
Rs.1,30,099/-.
5.2 Apart from the aforesaid enhancement sought for, the
learned advocate has urged this Court to reconsider the
amount of compensation awarded under the head of Pain,
Shock and Suffering (PSS). According to her, looking to the
fact that the applicant - claimant was advised to take six
months rest and the injuries sustained, the Tribunal ought to
have considered the amount of Rs.35,000/- under the head of
PSS instead of Rs.20,000/- being awarded. She had also
prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation
towards the actual loss of income in light of the fact that the
income of the applicant if considered as Rs.4,400/- per month,
the same was required to be reconsidered as Rs.17,600/-
instead of Rs.16,000/-.
5.3 Lastly, she has urged this Court to reconsider the
amount of compensation awarded under the head of special
diet, attendance and transportation (SAT) which was confined
to the tune of Rs.20,000/- only. According to her, the Tribunal
ought to have considered the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards
the same. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned
advocate for the appellant - original claimant has urged this
Court to determine the total amount of compensation as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1113/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
Rs.2,34,189/- and has thereby prayed for enhancement of an
amount of Rs.88,339/- which may be awarded with interest of
9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.
6. Mr. Tanmay Karia, learned advocate for the contesting
respondent no.3 - insurance company, at the outset has
placed reliance upon the findings and the reasons assigned by
the learned Judge while considering the compensation under
the aforesaid disputed heads. He has submitted that no error
can be found with the approach of the Tribunal. He has
therefore, objected to the aforesaid submissions of the learned
advocate for the appellant - original claimant and has urged
this Court not to entertain the present appeal.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned
advocates for the respective parties and having perused the
impugned judgment and award in light of the submissions of
the learned advocate for the appellant - original claimant,
noticing the fact that the applicant was aged 32 years at the
time of accident and indisputably was engaged in the work of
driving, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions of the
learned advocate for the appellant. It was the case of the
original claimant as pleaded in the original claim petition that
the applicant was earning an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month.
The claimant had entered into witness box and has been
cross-examined. In his cross-examination, the applicant has
admitted at Exh.30 that he has not produced any documentary
evidence to prove that he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month.
The Tribunal has therefore referred to the minimum wages
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1113/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
prescribed by the State and has accordingly determined the
amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of the
applicant.
8. During the course of arguments, learned advocate for
the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs.
Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service reported in 2013
(16) SCC 719, wherein in case of the diamond polisher, which
was treated as a skilled job, the monthly income of the
deceased was determined as Rs.5,000/- relating to an accident
of the year 1998. The reliance was also placed on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Minu Rout & Anr. Vs.
Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors., reported in (2013) 10
SCC 695, wherein in a claim petition relating to an accident of
the year 2004, the salary of the driver of the light motor
vehicle was assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month.
9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid
submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant.
Considering the fact that the accident relates to the year
2009, the income of the appellant - original claimant can be
considered as Rs.4,400/- as prayed for in light of the aforesaid
decisions. In the aforesaid cases also, the proof of the income
was not placed for consideration before the Tribunal.
However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that once it
has emerged on record that the victim was doing skilled job,
considering the nature of the job involved, the monthly
income has been assessed. The Court has also in fact
proceeded to award future rise by applying appropriate rates.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1113/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Shethi
and others reported in 2017 (3) GLH-536 and looking to the
age of the applicant at the time of the accident, the applicant
is entitled to 40% future rise of the income as determined. As
regards the submissions made by the learned advocate for the
appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation
under the head of actual loss of income is concerned, the
same requires reconsideration having accepted the case of the
claimant and income as Rs.4,400/-. Accordingly, the amount
under the head of actual loss of income is enhanced from
Rs.16,000/- to Rs.17,600/-. As regards the submissions of the
learned advocate for the appellant for enhancement of amount
of compensation under the head of PSS, the same deserves
consideration in light of the fact that the applicant had
sustained injuries out of an accident and looking to the
medical case papers produced on record, it was evident that
the applicant was advised six months rest. The aforesaid
prayer of learned advocate for the appellant requires
consideration. Hence, the amount of compensation under the
head of PSS is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. Similarly the amount
of compensation under the head of SAT is also enhanced from
Rs.20,00/- to Rs.25,000/-.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation
awarded under the different heads is redetermined and is
reproduced hereunder in tabular form.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1113/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
Sr. Particulars Awarded Enhancement
no. amount
1. Income Rs.3,000/- Rs.4,400/-
2. Future prospect --- 40%
4. Disability 11% 11%
5. Future loss of income Rs.63,360/- Rs.1,30,099/-
6. Medical expenses Rs.26,490/- Rs.26,490/-
7. P.S.S. Rs.20,000/- Rs.35,000/-
8. Actual loss of income Rs.16,000/- Rs.17,600/-
9. S.A.T. Rs.20,000/- Rs.25,000/-
TOTAL :- Rs.1,45,850/- Rs.2,34,189/-
=========
Difference of enhanced amount Rs.88,339/-
11. The appeal is therefore allowed. The total amount of
compensation is determined to Rs.2,34,189/- as against the
amount of Rs.1,45,850/- being awarded by the Tribunal. Thus,
the appellant - original claimant is entitled to enhance amount
of compensation to the tune of Rs.88,330/- with interest of 9%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual
realization. The original opponent nos.1 to 3 who have been
held jointly and severally liable towards the payment of
compensation are held jointly and severally liable to pay the
aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation. Let the
aforesaid amount of compensation be deposited with the
concerned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of the aforesaid order. On receipt of the
aforesaid amount, the Tribunal is directed to release and
disburse the entire awarded amount in favour of the appellant
- original claimant subject to due verification and strictly in
adherence with the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in this regard. Let the aforesaid exercise be undertaken by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1113/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
the Tribunal within a period of two weeks from deposit of such
awarded amount. With these observations, the present appeal
stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.)
AMAR RATHOD...
