Gujarat High Court
Jigishaben Maheshbhai Patel vs Sipai Mohammadkhan Rasulkhan on 26 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1327 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JIGISHABEN MAHESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
SIPAI MOHAMMADKHAN RASULKHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ROBIN PRASAD(9344) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MS. VRUNDA C SHAH(6702) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 26/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1). Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 12.12.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux),
Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.537/2011, the appellant - original claimant
preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for enhancement of
compensation.
2). Heard Mr. Robin Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms.
Vrunda Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr.K.V.Gadhia,
learned counsel for respondent No.4. Rule unserved qua respondent Nos.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
and 2.
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 05.01.2011, the appellant was
travelling in AMTS Bus bearing No.GJ-01-BV-8728 from Lal Darwaja to her
home and at Malav Talav, when the appellant was going down from front
side of the bus, the driver of the bus driven his bus in rash and negligent
manner. Due to which, the appellant was fallen down from bus and front
wheel of the bus ran over her left leg. As a result, the appellant got serious
injuries and her left leg below knee was amputated. In this regard, FIR came
to be filed at Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad. Subsequently, the claim
petition was filed by the appellant to get compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-
from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record,
the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.11,96,441/- along with
cost and interest @ 9 % p.a.
4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal
has failed to properly appreciate the documents produced on record and
has not correctly assessed the income of the victim, who has suffered
severe bodily disablement. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation under the head of loss of marriage prospects,
even though the victim, being a young lady, had to undergo amputation of
her left leg. However, a meager amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded
under the head of pain, shock, and suffering. He has further contended that
the evidence on record, including the certificates issued by the Orthopedic
Surgeon, remained unchallenged. These documents clearly indicate that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
artificial leg requires replacement every 3 to 5 years. It is argued that the
Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of the victim's co-student,
who was pursuing PTC with her, regarding her income. Therefore,
considering the economic loss suffered due to her physical disability,
interference of this Court may be called for for enhancement of
compensation.
5) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has opposed the present
appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the
evidence on record. It is contended that, at the time of accident, the
appellant was a student of PTC course and, even after the accident, she was
able to continue her studies. Therefore, there is no loss of future prospects,
as she can still pursue a career as a teacher and earn accordingly. Hence, no
adverse effect on her earning capacity or functional disability should be
considered, considering nature of the work as she would be required to
perform as a teacher. It is further submitted that the amputation of the leg
is below the knee, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
disability at 50%, which is just and proper.
6) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the material placed on record, the factum of the accident is not in
dispute. The issue of negligence is also undisputed, as the driver of the
offending AMTS bus has been held solely responsible. Therefore, the
present appeal is filed to the limited aspect of quantum. To substantiate the
claim, the appellant has tendered her deposition at Exh. 28, the deposition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
of Dr. S. G. Patel at Exh. 35, affidavits of two witnesses at Exhs. 87 and 93,
the disability certificate at Exh. 36, injury certificate at Exh. 40, and medical
bills at Exhs. 42 to 79. Insurance coverage is also not in dispute. Upon
examining the documentary evidence, the Tribunal has noted that, as per
the disability certificate, the appellant has suffered 45% partial permanent
disablement due to the injuries sustained, resulting in amputation of her left
leg below the knee. The Tribunal considered the disability at 50% for the
purpose of awarding just compensation, observing that the case does not
fall under permanent total disablement, as the appellant, being a teacher,
could undertake teaching or other suitable work. At the time of the
accident, the appellant was a PTC student and subsequently, continued and
completed her studies. To prove her prospective income, the appellant
examined her co-student, Aartiben, as a witness, attempting to establish the
income she would have earned after completing the PTC course. However,
the Tribunal did not consider this evidence and assessed her notional
income at Rs. 5,000/- per month, observing that no documentary proof of
income was produced on record.
7) 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 applicant. In the present case, the accident occurred
on 05.01.2011 and during that time, the appellant - injured was student of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
PTC course, and as per the Government approved minimum wages was
Rs.4,370/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the
appellant at Rs.7,000/- p.m including future prospect considering disability
at 40% and also multiplier of 18 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] which are just and proper. Therefore, the Tribunal
has not committed any error in awarding Rs.7,56,000/- as future loss of
income. So far medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,90,441/-, which is also just and proper.
8) Considering the nature of injury and age of the victim and has
sustained the partial permanent disability and other consequential losses of
said injury, claimant is entitled for getting the compensation in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish
Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 wherein it has been held
that the Tribunal shall award the compensation very conservatively keeping
in mind the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation
which can be termed as "just compensation" as insured / injured claimant
has to face the consequences throughout her life and that should not be any
token damages. Even, in the case of Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in (2022)
7 SCC 738, relying on the decision in the case of Kajal (Supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by observing in paragraph No.7 as under:-
"7. It was also argued that in a judgment reported as Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand2, the injured was a 12 years old girl who had suffered an injury to
the extent that her IQ got less than 20% as compared to a child of her age
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
and the medical board had assessed her social age to be only of a 9-
months' old child. This Court had recognized that Schedule II of the Act
could be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. This
Court in the aforesaid case held as under (SCC pp. 419, 421 & 426, paras 6,
12 & 27)
"6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal
deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act
enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a
judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate
the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one
hand, the compensation should not be assessed very
conservatively, but on the other hand, the compensation
should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to
make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing
the compensation should have regard to the degree of
deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such
compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The
compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries
should be substantial to compensate the injured for the
deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life.
They should not be just token damages.
xxx xxx xxx
12. The assesment of damages in personal injury cases raises
great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and
mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure
of calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as
best as can, in the circumstances, should be made.
9) xxx xxx xxx
27. One factor which must be kept in mind while assessing
the compensation in a case like the present one is that the
claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come
back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage
praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the
courts or the Tribunals assessing the compensation in a case
of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability
also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding
the compensation. While awarding this amount, we are not
only taking the physical disability but also the mental
disability and various other factors. This child will remain
bedridden for life. Her mental age will be that of a nine-
month-old child. Effectively, while her body grows, she will
remain a small baby. We are dealing with a girl who will
physically become a woman but will mentally remain a 9-
month-old child. This girl will miss out playing with her
friends. She cannot communicate; she cannot enjoy the
pleasures of life; she cannot even be amused by watching
cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of childhood, the
excitement of youth; the pleasures of a marital life; she
cannot have children who she can love, let alone
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
grandchildren. She will have no pleasure. Her's is a vegetable
existence. Therefore, we feel in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case even after taking a very
conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the
pain and suffering of this child should be at least Rs
15,00,000."
10) Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of minor had
considered multiplier of 18. As the learned Tribunal has relied on the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal (Supra), no
error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in considering the injury
to the minor in relying on the decision in the case of Kajal (Supra).
11) Further, the compensation has to be awarded once and for all as
victim is not at fault and it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just
compensation. Considering overall facts and circumstances relating to
treatment, mental agony, pain, disablement, loss of wages and expenditure
in the hospital for nutritious diet and other expenditure incurred by the
family members and other charges for attendant is also required to be
considered. Considering the disablement and mental pain, shock and
suffering qua loss of amenities, Tribunal has properly considered all the
aspects and awarded just compensation on the head of non-pecuniary
damages also. It is also pertinent to note that adopting a sensitive approach
is crucial for the Tribunal. It plays a key and vital role in ensuring not only
justice to the victim of the motor accident but also to determine just and
fair compensation. The Tribunal is expected to have empathy and to prevent
subsequent trauma by taking a sensitive approach to feeling the pain of the
victim of the road accident because the victim of the road accident and their
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
family often deal with physical and emotional trauma and an empathetic
approach can provide them a sense of support and understanding.
12) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in
(2023) 3 SCC 439, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its
decision in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar reported in
(2022) 13 SCC 790 has observed and held in paragraph 113 as under:
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in
Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury
not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too
often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant
trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one
she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others,
robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the
judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe
limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now
recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21 of the
individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a
wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able
bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most
discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts
oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured
victim."
13) So far pain, shock and suffering is concerned, the tribunal has
awarded Rs.25,000/-, which is required to be enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- as
young lady has lost her left leg. So far attendance, special diet and
transportation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of
Rs.10,000/- which also needs to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, loss of
amenities and loss of enjoyment of life and future medical expenses are also
required to be enhanced as the appellant has to replace her artificial leg at
every 3 to 5 years continuously.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
14) It is to be noted that at the time of accident, the appellant was young
lady aged about 19 years, who lost her left leg in the accident, however, the
Tribunal has erred in not awarded any compensation towards loss of
matrimonial prospects. Considering the same, the claimant - victim is
entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of loss of matrimonial
prospects
15) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation
computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Pain, shock and Rs.25,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
sufferings
Special diet, attendant Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/-
and transportation
Loss of amenities and Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
loss of enjoyment of life
Future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
Loss of matrimonial Nil Rs.3,00,000/-
prospects
Total compensation Rs.2,35,000/- Rs.9,50,000/-
16) Hence, present appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 12.12.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux),
Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.537/2011 is hereby
modified to the aforesaid extent. The appellant would be entitled to
get additional amount of Rs.7,15,000/- with proportionate costs and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1327/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The opponents shall
deposit said additional amount before the Tribunal within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
17) Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith. The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly. Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
