Gujarat High Court
Khengarbhai Ratubhai vs Inayatkhan Dolubhai Chisti on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3411 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KHENGARBHAI RATUBHAI
Versus
INAYATKHAN DOLUBHAI CHISTI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated
02.03.2013 passed in M.A.C.P. No.181 of 2003 by learned Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxiliary), Dhrangadhra.
2. Vide the impugned judgment and award, whilst partly
allowing the petition, a compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,22,400/- was ordered to be paid to the claimant, by the
opponents, jointly and severally, with 9% simple interest per
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
annum from the date of the filing of the petition till actual
realization.
3. Again, if the accident is examined, the appellant claims to
have been hit by a scooter (bearing Registration No.GJ-01-H-
2451) when the appellant had been sitting on his stationary
motorcycle (a Hero Honda), on left side of road, talking to a
person, Mehboobbhai and others, who, in turn, were on jeep on
the other side of the road. The appellant - claimant thus suffered
injuries, for which the claim petition was filed before the
Tribunal.
4. It appears that whilst adjudicating the said petition the
Tribunal was pleased to hold the applicant (victim - motorcyclist)
was negligent to the extent of 20%, and; 80% negligence was
attributed to the rider of the offending scooter (bearing
Registration No. GJ-01-H-2451) involved in the accident.
5. It appears that by way of the present appeal, the appellant
(original claimant) has challenged the impugned judgment and
award on two counts, namely on account of assessment of
negligence, as well as on the assessment of quantum of
compensation granted. Arguing the case on negligence, it was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
submitted that the Tribunal has skirted the issue of negligence
by not giving appropriate reasons. It was submitted that no
negligence could possibly be attributed to the appellant -
claimant in as much as he was standing on his left side of the
road and that therefore, the negligence of the appellant (victim -
motorcyclist) should have been held at zero percentage and that
as the scooterist had tried to overtake the stationary motorcycle
of the appellant, that too from the left side, and therefore, 100%
of the negligence ought to have been attributed to the driver of
the said scooter (bearing Registration No. GJ-01-H-2451).
6. It was next submitted that the quantum decided in the
present matter is neither just nor adequate. It was submitted
that the entire agricultural income, to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-
per annum of the agriculturist appellant, has been ignored
merely by stating that some bills of the agricultural income
though produced, have been so produced after a period of 9
years; that there was no corresponding documentary evidence
regarding the bills adduced on record with the plaint, and that
therefore, they are not reliable. That it has also been
unjustifiably observed in the impugned order that there was no
income tax details filed in the said matter and that therefore the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
agriculture income of the appellant - claimant cannot possibly
be believed. It was submitted that the Tribunal has whimsically
taken Rs.3,000/- as the income of the appellant and on that
basis, has calculated the compensation payable towards the
accident. It was submitted that agricultural income of the
appellant ought to have been considered and corresponding
income of the appellant ought to have been assessed at
Rs.7,000/- per month.
7. It was submitted that the record indicates that 17%
permanent disablement of body as a whole of the appellant, was
agreed to between the parties. Further, the monthly income
should have been assessed at least at Rs.7,000/- per month. It
was submitted that the multiplier, as given by the Tribunal to
the applicant, is of 10, whereas looking to the age of the
appellant in light of the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation - (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier should have been
at 13. It was also submitted that the prospective income has also
been ignored whilst computing the assessment. The prospective
income, according to the appellant, should have been at 25% in
tune with the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi - 2017 (16) SCC 680. It was also submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
under the other heads, the loss of income has been computed
only at Rs.7,800/-, which is on the basis of income of Rs.3,120/-
per month for a period of 78 days presumably as no specific
period of injury/treatment has been specified by the learned
Tribunal. It was submitted that the actual loss of income should
have been computed for the period of 6 months. Similarly, it was
submitted that for pain, shock and suffering, the amount should
have been higher, looking to the nature of medical evidence and
that therefore, the same should have been awarded to the tune
of Rs.50,000/-. Further, the compensation towards special diet,
attendant and transportation charges, it should have been
adjudged at Rs.50,000/-, but the same was only awarded to the
extent of Rs.15,000/-. It was thus submitted that the
compensation may kindly be enhanced and also it be held that
the appellant was not negligent at all.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil Parikh appearing for the
respondent - Insurance Company has submitted that insofar as
negligence is concerned, the appellant's negligence has correctly
been assessed at 20% inasmuch as, at the material point in
time, the claimant was not standing on left side of the road, but
was standing next to the left side of the jeep. It was submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
that it is inconceivable that on a highway, a person would talk to
somebody in the jeep from across the opposite side of the road,
whilst parking on the left side of such road. He has submitted
that actually the appellant had parked his motor-cycle on left
side of the jeep and therefore, he was on the wrong side of the
road. Resultantly when the scooterist passed by the appellant on
the road, as the legs of the appellant were extended, the
scooterist ended up injuring the appellant on his legs. It was
submitted that the scooter had not dashed with the motorcycle
as there no corresponding dents found on the motorcycle, but
the injury was only to the appellant. It was submitted that the
Tribunal is absolutely right in assessing negligence of the
original claimant (present appellant) at 20%. Insofar as the
income is concerned, it was submitted that mere production of
bills of agricultural income would not prove that the agricultural
income of the appellant stands proved. It was submitted that
along with the bills, the entity issuing the bill (i.e. the person
authorized by such entity) should have been examined to give
credence to the said bills. Without such evidence, it was
absolutely right on the part of the Tribunal to have not
considered the agricultural income in terms of the bills. It was
further submitted that at the age of 50, a person would not be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
doing hard labour or agriculture by himself. In such case, it
would only be a case of loss of supervision to the concerned
agricultural activities of the appellant. Thus, whatever the loss
is, is to the extent of supervisory loss and in that respect,
considering the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the
accident, the income of the appellant was correctly assessed at
Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, the sums awarded in the said
judgment and award are just and proper. It was also submitted
that no corresponding enhancement under the head of pain,
shock and suffering or under the cumulative head of special diet,
attendant, transportation and miscellaneous charges are
required to be made. He also submitted that supervisory loss
could only be limited to the period of 78 days and that therefore,
the amount of Rs.7,800/- towards actual loss is just and proper.
It was thus submitted that from the cumulative amount
computed by the Tribunal, 20% amount has been deducted and
therefore, the resultant amount to the tune of Rs.1,22,400/- is
the amount which is correctly awarded by the Tribunal towards
compensation in relation to the present accident. It was thus
submitted that this Court may not interfere with the findings of
the Tribunal in the present matter and may please dismiss this
appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
9. None of the advocates for other respondents remain
present before this Court.
10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties, this Court proceed to decide the present lis in terms
appearing hereinafter.
11. The following points of determination arise for
consideration of this Court :
"(a) Whether the income and corresponding computation
were correctly assessed by the Tribunal? If not, what would
be the just compensation in the present factual matrix?
Whether rate of interest applicable on the compensation so
awarded is just and proper?
(b) Whether the negligence was correctly adjudicated in
the matter? If not, what percentage of negligence is
attributable to the appellant?"
12. Firstly, the nature of accident and the corresponding
negligence of the appellant. This Court has perused the
examination-in-chief of the appellant - claimant wherein he has
specifically stated that he has been standing on left side of the
road whilst going from Vadgam to Patdi and that the other
vehicle in which Taluka Development Officer (TDO) coming from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
opposite side, as the TDO was going towards Jainabad and that
therefore, they crossed sides. At this juncture, having known
each other, stopped their respective vehicles on their respective
left sides of the road, and that they were interacting with each
other. It is the claim of the appellant that he was on his
motorcycle with his legs spread by the motorcycle ( sic to support
the motorcycle). This aspect, when examined against the FIR and
Panchnama, it appears that in the FIR, the appellant - claimant
has stated "જેથી મારુ મોટર સાઇકલ રોડની ડાબી સાઈડ ઉભું રાખેલ અને મોટર
સાઇકલ પર પગ પહોળા કરી ઉભા ઉભા જીપના અધિકારી અને માણસો સાથે વાતો કરતો
હતો." The closest English translation to the aforesaid phrase is
that "therefore, I stopped my motorcycle on the left side of the
road and whilst being on motorcycle with my legs spread across
(sic, to support the motorcycle), I was talking to the officers and
men (sic, traveling) in the jeep."
13. It appears that somehow, it has been stated in the
impugned judgment and award that the appellant - claimant
was sitting on the motorcycle, with his legs, 'expanded'. It is
inconceivable that a person would have his legs expanded whilst
sitting on the motorcycle because if the legs were so expanded,
the motorcycle itself would fall. Thus, it is the view of this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
that the legs would be by the sides of the motorcycle so that the
motorcycle can be supported. Now it is a case in the FIR that the
scooter came from behind and was "overtaking" the motorcycle
from the left side of the motorcycle and therefore the scooterist
caused injury to the left leg of the appellant. Thus, the offending
motorcycle came from behind, causing the accident.
14. Similarly, when the Panchnama is perused, it appears that
the vehicles, namely the motorcycle and the scooter were found
apart on the road, at a distance of about 30 ft from each other.
Under the Panchnama, it appears that except for a broken
mirror of the Hero Honda, no other damage has been done to the
motorcycle. And thus, the motorcycle and scooter have not
collided. But, as the Hero Honda fell after the scooterist injured
the leg of the appellant, the Hero Honda would have fallen. If
there were collision between the vehicles, both the vehicle would
suffer dents. Furthermore, what is material is that that there
was a vehicle wheel-marks of the scooter on the left side of the
motorcycle and therefore, there is a reason to believe that the
scooterist was driving at a high speed and had applied short
brakes, causing such wheel-marks. Furthermore, in the scooter,
damage was found there being scratch marks on the accessories
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
on the left side of the said scooter. These marks can only happen
if post the accident, the scooter fell and skidded on its left side.
Now the case of the respondent - Insurance Company, the
offending scooterist passed by right of motorcyclist. But if there
was indeed a collision between two vehicles, the impact of
collision would be on both vehicles, which is not the case. In the
Panchnama, the damage to the scooter is on the left side. But
same appears to have happened after the scooterist injured the
leg of the appellant. Therefore, the story that the scooterist tried
to overtake the motorcycle from the left has some basis. Thus,
the stand of the insurance company that the motorcycle was on
the right side or middle of the road cannot be said to been
substantiated. Similarly, the motor-cycle being on the left side of
the jeep also has no basis, and more particularly, when issue is
examined in light of the FIR and Panchnama. This is so as both
the vehicles are found to be lying on left side of the road and the
wheel-marks were towards the left side of the motorcycle. In any
case, the scooterist appears to have approached the injured from
behind. If that is so, and if it is assumed that the motor-cyclist
was on wrong side of the road, for the collision to occur, the
offending scooterist, too, would have to be on the wrong side of
the road. Even in the cross examination of the appellant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
claimant, the only suggestion that appears to have been given
was that the scooter was coming from the opposite end which
has been denied by the applicant. It is again suggested that
scooter had come from the opposite end and had come in a slow
speed, which also has been denied by the appellant. There is no
other cross examination in respect of the accident in the cross-
examination to the said affidavit of examination-in-chief, Exh.60.
If at all the case under the cross examination is to be considered
(namely that the motorcycle was parked on the wrong side of the
road) then it would imply that the scooter, coming from opposite
end, it would be highly negligent of the scooter to come from
behind the motorcyclist, on the wrong side of road, to the left
side of the motorcyclist which is already on right side (wrong
side) of the road. Hence, such version cannot be believed. This
being the case before the Tribunal, the Tribunal erred in holding
the negligence of the claimant to the extent of 20%. The highest
negligence possibly that can be attributed to the claimant would
be to the tune of 7% as the applicant himself was parking on the
highway and was talking, thereby inconveniencing the traffic.
Hence, according to this Court, the negligence of the claimant
ought to be reduced from 20% to 7%.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
15. Now, the income of the appellant. Undisputably, the
appellant is of 50 years of age. He has several plots of land as
has been indicated by way of various village form no.8, adduced
on record. It appears that the cumulative land with the appellant
is as follows :
Survey No. Area Village
Acre - Guntha
169 paiki 02-01 Vadgam
90 22-24 Vadgam
24-25 (Total)
16. It appears that both these pieces of land are having wells
as is evidenced by respective certificates of Taluka-cum-Mantri,
Vadgam and Taluka Development Officer, Patadi. The aforesaid
indicates that the appellant is reasonably big an agriculturist
possessing about 24-25 Acre-Guntha of lands in aggregate. It is
the case of the appellant - claimant that the entire agricultural
income is attributable to the efforts of the appellant - claimant.
However, the respondent - Insurance Company's case is that the
land continues to be held with the appellant and that the loss
that is suffered is owing to supervisory loss. It was the
contention of the respondent - Insurance Company that at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
age of 50, it cannot be the case of the appellant that it was he
himself who was tilling the lands. On the other hand, the
appellant's case in the examination-in-chief is that the appellant
was healthy and that he was doing the agriculture by modern
means. That he also had a tractor bearing registration number
GJ-13-B-844. That the appellant used to avail modern fertilizer,
advanced seedlings and also pesticides and by using them, was
getting an agricultural income of Rs.3,00,000/-. The
corresponding bills in respect of cotton, cumin seeds etc., having
been sold various market yards namely Chanasma, Unjha etc.
were produced on record and after deducting the expenses, a net
income of Rs.4,00,000/- per year was claimed, as being earned
by the appellant. With this background, when the cross
examination of the appellant - original claimant is perused, it
appears that therein, the appellant has denied a suggestion,
which was put to the appellant, namely that he does the
agricultural activities by himself. He also states that he does not
have any documentary evidence to prove that he had engaged
other persons to work at his agricultural fields. In short, he
denies that he is doing agricultural work by himself. Therefore,
the assertion in the examination-in-chief that he was doing
agricultural activities by himself is not believable. What can
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
therefore be believed that he was only doing supervision work,
over the agricultural fields. It is in that view of the matter that
the income of the appellant - claimant will have to be assessed.
In the circumstances, the minimum wages, as applicable to the
supervisor along with certain other incomes as assessed by the
Tribunal appears to be correct. Thus, when the agricultural
lands continue to be with the appellant - claimant and his
permanent partial disablement of the body as a whole is only
17%, the loss is in respect to supervisory work to the extent of
disability. And for a supervisor, the notional income can only be
to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month, more so when the
accident is of the year-2003. Therefore, the finding that he was
earning Rs.36,000/- yearly ought not to be disturbed.
17. The parties, have submitted that the permanent disability
of the body as a whole be taken at 17%. There is no dispute
between the parties in this respect, at this stage. And therefore,
the calculation towards future loss ought to be computed on that
basis. The age of the appellant - claimant, at the relevant time,
was 50 years. However, it appears that the multiplier employed
by the Tribunal is on the lower side in as much as in terms of
the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier should have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
been to the tune of 13 whereas that taken by the Tribunal is just
10. The relevant observations in the case of Sarla Verma ( supra)
reads as follows:
"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas,
Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an
operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to
20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every
five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for
31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41
to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-
11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for
61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
Hence, the applicable multiplier for an individual suffering
an accident at the age of 50 years would be 13. Thus, the
corresponding amount of monthly income for calculating future
loss would be Rs.6120/- (that being the 17% of the yearly
income of Rs.36,000/-). In short, the multiplicand is Rs.6,120/-.
The multiplicand, when multiplied by 13, it would come to
Rs.79,560/-.
18. It appears that owing to the injury, the appellant -
claimant had to undergo an operation. It appears that the said
accident had taken place on 05.04.2003. As evidenced from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
certificate issued by Dr.Manoj Joshi, it appears that the
discharge of the appellant - claimant was on 17.04.2003.
Similarly, in the examination-in-chief, the case of the appellant
is that he had to visit Consultant at Ahmedabad for about 7
times. Even after discharge, the patient would have required to
rest and therefore the future income loss of income have to be
computed for the period of 4 months and therefore that amount
of actual loss for four months would be Rs.3,000/- multiplied by
4 which is Rs.12,000/-. Under the heads of pain, shock and
suffering, looking to the nature of injuries, Rs.25,000/- ought to
be awarded. There would however be no change towards cost of
treatment and medications which have already been awarded by
the Tribunal at Rs.54,000/-. Similarly, towards special diet,
attendant and transportation charges, the figure stands revised
to Rs.20,000/-.
19. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 79,560/-
=Rs.36,000/- x 13 Multiplier x 17% disability
Pain, shock and suffering 25,000/-
Actual loss of income 12,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
Medical expenses 54,000/-
Special diet, attendant charges, 20,000/-
transportation
Grand Total... 1,90,560/-
Less: 7% negligence of the deceased 13339.2/-
(Less: Rs. 1,90,560 X 7%)
Total... 1,77,221/-
(Rounded of)
Less : Amount already awarded by Tribunal 1,22,400/-
Enhancement 54,821/-
20. Therefore, this Court holds that the claimant is entitled to
get the enhanced compensation of Rs.54,821/- with 9% p.a.
interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its
realisation from opponent Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally,
which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of
the Tribunal remain same.
21. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
22. The present appeal is partly allowed.
23. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3411/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
enhanced amount Rs.54,821/- with 9% p.a. interest from the
date of claim petition till its realization before the concerned
Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of this order.
24. 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, by account payee cheque /
NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
25. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
26. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
GAURAV J THAKER/JIGAR J RABARI
