Gujarat High Court
Mansuri Salimbhai Kadarbhai vs Vaniyawala Mahommad Hussain Kadarbhai on 26 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/965/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 965 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
MANSURI SALIMBHAI KADARBHAI
Versus
VANIYAWALA MAHOMMAD HUSSAIN KADARBHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BK RAJ(3794) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KB MAGHNANI(9673) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 26/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") is filed by the appellants - original
claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
23.10.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Narmada, at Rajpipla (for short "learned Tribunal") in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.232 of 2016 whereby the learned Tribunal
was pleased to award compensation of Rs.84,820/- to the appellant -
original claimant.
[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal is as follows:
[2.1] On 11.05.2016, the appellant - original claimant was standing
opposite to the lady tailor shop near Rupali Talkies and at that time,
opponent No.1 - driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-06-HA-1559 came driving
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/965/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the
appellant - original claimant pursuant to which the claimant sustained
fracture injury on his left leg and was admited in the hospital.
Therefore, the appellant - original claimant filed MACP No.232/2016
seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- however, the learned Tribunal
has awarded Rs.84,820/- to the claimant. Hence, the appellant -
original claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
[3.0] Learned advocate for the appellant has assailed the impugned
judgment and award on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not
considered the income of the claimant even on the basis of minimum
wages prevailing at the time of accident though the claimant was
earning monthly Rs.15,000/- from the business of scrap. He has
submitted that the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the
motorcycle sole negligent for the accident and after considering the
documentary evidence namely FIR Exh.28 filed against opponent No.1,
panchnama of scene of accident at Exh.29, injury certificate of
claimant at Exh.30, driving license of opponent No.1 at Exh.40,
insurance policy at Exh.42, disability certificate at Exh.47 and medical
bills produced at Exhs.31 to 39. He has further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has not awarded the just compensation and hence,
he has requested to allow the present first appeal.
[4.0] Learned advocate appearing for the respondent - insruance
company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that in
absence of any proof of income, the learned Tribunal has properly
considered the income of claimant at Rs.4000/- based on guess work
and hence, no interference by this Court is required. He has therefore
requested to dismiss the present appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/965/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
[5.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned
advocate for the insurance company and perusing the record, it
appears that though the learned Tribunal has relied on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Shanti Devi & Ors. reported in (2009) 4
SCC 355, in absence of any evidence of income, the learned Tribunal
has to do guess work for the assessment of income. Herein, the
accident took place in the year 2016 and income of the claimant is
assessed at Rs.4000/- per month. Even, as per the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance
Company Ltd. [(2011)10 SCC 683] and Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram
vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav reported in (2022)1 SCC 198, considering
the guess work and minimum wages prevailing in the year 2016, as the
claimant was unskilled, his income ought to have been assessed at
Rs.7400/-. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 46 years
and considering the age group of 46 to 50 years, mutliplier of 13 is
required to be applied and additional future prospect at the rate of
25% is required to be considered. Further, the claimant had sustained
18% permanent disability however, the parties agreed to consider the
disability at 8%. The monthly income as discussed above is required to
be considered at Rs.7400/- and applying 25% towards additional
prospects, it would come to Rs.7400 + Rs.1850 (Rs.7400 x 25%) =
Rs.9250/- and considering 8% disability, monthly loss of income would
come to Rs.740/- and yearly loss of income would come to Rs.8,880/-
(Rs.740 x 12) and future loss of income, applying multiplier of 13,
would come to Rs.1,15,440/-. So far as other heads are concerned,
under the head of actual of income, the learned Tribunal has
considered Rs.8000/- but as discussed above, the claimant is entitled
to Rs.15,000/- (Rs.7400 x 2 months). So far as compensation under
the head of pain, shock and suffering and medical expenses is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/965/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
concerned, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the
same.
[6.0] Thus, now the appellant - original claimant is entitled to
the compensation as under:
Heads Amount Reassessed by
awarded by this Court
the Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.49,920/- Rs.1,15,440/-
Actual loss of income Rs.8,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Pain, shock and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.11,900/- Rs.11,900/-
Special diet, attendant and Rs.5,000/- Rs.5000/-
transportation charges
Total... Rs.84,420/- Rs.1,57,340/-
Thus, the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.84,820/- which is on lower side, for the reasons recorded hereinabove,
and therefore, same is required to be enhanced to the aforesaid extent
i.e. Rs.1,57,340/- and hence, the appellant - original claimant is entitled
to get additional amount of Rs.72,920/- (Rs.1,57,340 - Rs.84,420)
towards compensation and therefore, the impugned judgment and
award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.
[7.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal is partly
allowed. The respondent No.3 - insurance company is directed to
deposit an amount of Rs.1,57,340/- alongwith accrued interest at the
rate of 9% per annum, with the learned Tribunal within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of the present judgment. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/965/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
Impugned judgment and award dated 23.10.2018 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Narmada, at Rajpipla in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.232 of 2016 is modified to the
aforesaid extent and rest of the impugned judgment and award
remains unaltered.
[7.1] After the aforesaid amount is deposited by the insurance
company, learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same with
accrued interest thereon, if any, to the original claimant, by account
payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after
following due procedure.
[8.0] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid.
[9.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
