[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Minor Milan Mukeshbhai Parmar vs Bavalal Nanjibhai Bhanderi on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3964/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3964 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MINOR MILAN MUKESHBHAI PARMAR
Versus
BAVALAL NANJIBHAI BHANDERI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 20.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot,
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.918 of 2017, the appellant - original claimant preferred present
appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act" for short).
2. Heard Mr. Hemal Shah, learned Advocate for the appellant - original
Claimant and Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Perused the original record and proceedings.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 22.06.2017, when minor
claimant was going with his mother as pedestrian by taking care and caution
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3964/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
and when they were crossing the road, at that time, one car bearing
registration NO.GJ-03-EL-0166 came at an excessive speed and in negligent
manner and knocked down the minor Milan, due to which, he sustained
grievous injuries. In the said accident, the victim got fracture on left leg and
was operated and plate and iron rod was inserted. He also sustained injuries
on other vital parts of the body. Therefore, the claim petition was filed to
get compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the opponents towards injuries
sustained by minor. After appreciating the evidence produced on record,
the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and directed to recover
compensation of Rs.1,35,028/- with interest @ 9 % p.a.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the learned
Tribunal has failed to consider that the disability is more than 10% and in
view of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Ins. Co.
Ltd., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396, a lump-sum amount of Rs.3 lakhs is
required to be awarded, whereas, the learned Tribunal has assessed
Rs.40,500/- under the head of future economic loss. Hence, he has
requested to allow the present appeal.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 - Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error while passing the award, hence, the Tribunal ought to
have considered negligence of claimant. Hence, he has requested to dismiss
the present appeal.
6. It is undisputed fact that the factum of incident and disability
remained unchallenged and as per the Disability Certificate, the disability is
shown as 15%. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun (supra) in
para 12 held which reads as under:
"Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the
compensation in the case of children suffering disability on
account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the
relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3964/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on
all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for
treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above
10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4
lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6
lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs.1 lakh,
unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different
yardstick."
7. Herein the disability is more than 10% and for the permanent
disability upto 10% which is required to be awarded Rs.1 lakh as body as
whole if the disability is above 10% upto 30%, then Rs.3 lakhs is required to
be awarded.
8. In view of above discussion, in the present appeal, the awarded
compensation of Rs.1,35,028/- under the head of future economic loss is
enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- including pain, shock and suffering and special
diet and transportation. Further, the amount awarded under all the other
heads are just and proper.
9. As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation
computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future economic Rs.40,500/- Rs.3,00,000/-
loss
Medical Expenses Rs.84,528/- Rs.84,528/-
Pain, Shock and Rs.5,000/-
Suffering
Special Diet, Rs.5,000/-
Transportation &
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3964/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Attendant Charges
Total Rs.1,35,028/- Rs.3,84,528/-
Compensation
10. In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.1,35,028/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is entitled
to get additional amount of Rs.2,49,500/- with proportionate costs
and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11. It is needless to say that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent
legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief
to the victims, or their families and there is no bar that compensation
is restricted up to the claim by the claimant and the High Court and
Tribunal have to award the compensation up to that extent. In this
regard reference is required to be made to the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh
and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274, wherein,
it has been observed that there is no restriction that compensation
could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In
an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if
the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get
more compensation than claimed.
12. Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated
20.08.2024 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot,
in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.918 of 2017 stands modified to
the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains
unaltered. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit
said additional amount of Rs.2,49,500/- 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3964/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
13. The learned 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
