Gujarat High Court
Superintendent Of Post vs Manilal Somabhai Vasava Deleted on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/680/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 680 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST & ANR.
Versus
MANILAL SOMABHAI VASAVA DELETED & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-original opponent
No.2 and 3 against the judgment and award dated 24.12.2021 passed by The
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 140 of 2017 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of
respondent No. 2 and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,60,008/- with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the application.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served,
none appears for respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the present claim petition are that the accident
took place on 18th May 2016. The claimant was returning home from his
office on his Honda Activa scooter in the evening. While he was passing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/680/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
through the EME School area, opponent No. 1 came from behind, driving his
parcel van bearing No. GJ-06-GA-0059 at excessive speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, and dashed into the claimant. As a result, the accident
occurred and the claimant sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his
body. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to the hospital for
treatment, and a complaint was lodged in this regard.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the
appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in
awarding compensation and in the computation of future prospects of
income. It is submitted that there is no loss of income to respondent No. 2-
original claimant. In his cross-objection below Exhibit 21, he specifically
admitted that there was no reduction in his income due to the accident and
that he is living a normal life. However, the learned Tribunal overlooked this
aspect and awarded compensation without considering the factual position
regarding income. Since no loss of income was established and no
documentary evidence, such as Income Tax Returns, was produced, the
Tribunal erred in assessing the income. It is further submitted that the rate
of interest awarded at 9% is on the higher side. It is further submitted that
the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of
the claimant. Therefore, it is prayed that the present appeal be allowed.
Hence, it is requested that the present appeal be allowed.
5. After recording the evidence of the witnesses and appreciating the
same, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,60,008/-. So far as
contributory negligence is concerned, the appellant has failed to prove any
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Both vehicles were
proceeding in the same direction, and the parcel van hit the Activa scooter
from behind; therefore, the question of contributory negligence on the part
of the claimant, respondent No. 2 herein, does not arise. Hence, the
argument advanced by the learned advocate is not sustainable.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/680/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
6. Now, coming to the quantum aspect, the claimant was 35 years old
and his annual income was Rs. 1,72,110/-. To prove his income, the Income
Tax Return for the year 2015-16 was produced at Exhibit 39. The claimant
was serving in a private company. The Tribunal assessed his average monthly
income at Rs. 11,600/- and applied a multiplier of 16. With regard to
disability, the doctor had assessed 30% disability of the body as a whole,
which was not disputed and was accepted by both parties. For determining
future economic loss, 40% disability was considered. Considering these
facts, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,11,808/- towards future loss of income, Rs.
23,200/- towards actual loss of income for two months, Rs. 15,000/- towards
pain, shock and suffering, and Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant and
transportation charges. The aforesaid quantum is challenged on the ground
that there was no proof of income. However, the Income Tax Return is
already produced on record, and the Tribunal has assessed the proper
income for the relevant point of time.
7. Even if minimum wages and future prospects were considered, the
amount would come to nearly the same figure. Moreover, merely because
the claimant's income may have increased subsequently, it does not mean
that he is not entitled to compensation. Since the claimant sustained injuries
due to the motor vehicular accident, and if such injuries have resulted in any
permanent or partial disability, the victim is entitled to receive
compensation, as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the
claimant is entitled to receive compensation.
8. Even if it is accepted that his income has increased and that he is hale
and hearty and without any permanent or partial disablement, he may earn
more in the future and his income may further escalate. Hence, merely on
such flimsy grounds, this Court is of the considered view that the claimant's
admission regarding an increase in his income is not a ground to allow the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/680/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
present appeal or to reduce the compensation. Even considering the
smallest variation in the amount, keeping in mind law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi 2017
(16) SCC 680 (Paragraph No.55) :
"55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just
compensation" and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be
in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to
achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision
on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case.
The conception of "just compensation" has to be viewed through
the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the
principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the
claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the
compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It
cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is
quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be
guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The
determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on
record as regards the age and income of the deceased and
thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula
relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra)
and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and
income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing
evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the
basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to
reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a
life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation
having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between
the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza
and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/680/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made
by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes
addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far
as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization
keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency.
We approve the principle of "standardization" so that a specific and
certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the
basis of age."
Hence, no interference is required. The appeal therefore fails.
9. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper, which calls
for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of
merits, deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed.
10. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the
FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the
claimant after fixing apportionment, if not already fixed, by account payee
cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
11. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees,
if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal,
forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
GARVITA
