Gujarat High Court
Darvanbhai Narubhai Vankhla vs Pratapbhai Ratanbhai Kharadia on 7 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4374 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4386 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
DARVANBHAI NARUBHAI VANKHLA
Versus
PRATAPBHAI RATANBHAI KHARADIA & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
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 : 07/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Since both these appeals are arising out of the same
accident and the grounds and issue involved in both the appeals
are common they are being heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.
1) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and
award dated 06.08.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux), Dahod (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.302 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
2014 and 303 of 2014, the appellants - original claimants
preferred present appeals 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 appellants -
original Claimants and Ms. E. Shailaja, learned Advocate for
respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the original record
and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 26.06.2014, the
appellants and their relatives were travelling in Cruser Car
bearing Reg. No.GJ-03-Z-9066, going to Rajkot to attend
religious ceremony. At that time the driver was driving the car in
rash and negligent manner at excessive and uncontrollable
speed due to which the driver lost control over the car and the
car turned turtle on the roadside. As a result the appellants and
other sustained serious accidental injuries. The complaint being
I-C.R. No.83/2014 came to be filed with Limkheda Police
Station. The appellants taken for treatment in Saifee Orthopedic
Hospital, Dahod where they were operated. Therefore, the
appellants have filed MAC Petitions seeking compensation. After
appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned
Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed both the claim petitions.
4) The appeals are filed on limited ground that though the learned
Tribunal has considered minimum wages of prevalent time but
did not consider loss of future income and not considered 40%
increase in income as future prospect due to which loss is
suffered by the appellants. Further they have assailed the order
on the ground that though disability is agreed to 22.77% and
25% respectively, under the head of pain, shock and suffering
awarded only Rs.5,000/- is very low amount.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
5) As challenge is given only qua future prospect hence both the
appeals are required to be decided in narrow compass. As per
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in
2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on
the record then Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum
wages. In absence of ample evidence of monthly income of the
applicants. In the present case the accident occurred on
26.06.2014 and during that time the appellants were doing
business of selling vegetables and as per the Government
approved minimum wages the rate was Rs.5,940/- and the same
has already been considered by the learned Tribunal and upto
that extent the learned Tribunal has not committed any error.
But the learned Tribunal has not awarded or considered the
aspect of future prospect in view of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700.
for which appellants are entitled to get compensation.
6) In MAC Petition No.4374 of 2022, 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], the
Tribunal has considered multiplier of 15 without considering
future prospect and awarded Rs.2,43,457/- under the head of
loss of future income which is required to be enhanced in view of
Pranay Sethi (supra), by 40% therefore Rs.5,940/- and
adding future prospect 40% = Rs.2,376/-. Now total income
under the head of future loss of income is required to be
considered as Rs.2,376/- x 12 x 22.77% x 15 / 100 =
Rs.97,383/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.97,783/- under the head of future loss
of income.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount
of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering,
therefore, considering the disability of the appellant, the
appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.15,000/-
under the head of pain, shock and suffering. As the Tribunal has
awarded total compensation of Rs.3,36,571/-, however, as
discussed above the appellant would be entitled to get additional
amount of Rs.1,12,783/- i.e. Rs.97,383 under the head of
future loss of income and Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain,
shock and suffering with proportionate costs and interest at the
rate of 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
7) In MAC Petition No.4386 of 2022, 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], the
Tribunal has considered multiplier of 15 without considering
future prospect and awarded Rs.2,67,300/- under the head of
loss of future income which is required to be enhanced in view of
Pranay Sethi (supra), by 40% therefore Rs.5,940/- and
adding future prospect 40% = Rs.2,376/-. Now total income
under the head of future loss of income is required to be
considered as Rs.2,376/- x 12 x 25% x 15 / 100 =
Rs.1,06,920/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.1,06,920/- under the head of future
loss of income.
Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount
of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering,
therefore, considering the disability of the appellant, the
appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.15,000/-
under the head of pain, shock and suffering. As the Tribunal has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
awarded total compensation of Rs.3,52,288/-, however, as
discussed above the appellant would be entitled to get additional
amount of Rs.1,21,920/- i.e. Rs.1,06,920/- under the head of
future loss of income and Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain,
shock and suffering with proportionate costs and interest at the
rate of 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
8) Hence, present appeals are partly allowed. The judgments and
award dated 06.08.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux), Dahod, in MAC Petition Nos.302 of 2014
and 303 of 2014 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of
the judgment and award remains unaltered. It is provided that
respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit said
additional amount of Rs.1,12,783/- in MAC Petition No.4374 of
2022 and Rs.1,21,920/- in MAC Petition No.4386 of 2022 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.
9) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
10) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
