Gujarat High Court
Valiben Alias Valbai Ramniklal Patel vs Naran Bijal Chavda on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1710/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1710 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VALIBEN ALIAS VALBAI RAMNIKLAL PATEL
Versus
NARAN BIJAL CHAVDA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,4,5,6
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimant under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act, 1988") being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated
06/02/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhuj-Kachchh in MACP No.867 of 1997.
2. Short facts of the claim case are as under:
2.1. On 21/08/1997, when the appellant-original claimant and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1710/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
others were going towards Nakhatrana from Pandhro-Ravapar
on rental vehicle being Ambesador Taxi bearing registration
no.GJ-12-V-1570 and when they reached near Mathal village,
respondent no.1 came from the opposite direction with a truck
bearing registration no.GJ-12-U-5562 in a rash and negligent
manner and came on wrong side of the road and dashed the
vehicle belonging to the appellant and others and caused an
accident. In the said accident, the appellant-original claimant
sustained serious injures.
2.2. The appellant-original claimant therefore filed claim
petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-
against the respondents.
2.3. Vide the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the
learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition
preferred by the appellant-original claimant under Section
166 of the Act, 1988 holding that the appellant-original
claimant is entitled to receive compensation of an amount of
Rs.41,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual
realization from the respondents.
3. This Court vide order dated 31/07/2013, noticing the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant-
original claimant and the grounds raised in the present
appeal, has admitted the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1710/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
4. The learned counsel for the appellant-original claimant
has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding inadequate compensation to the claimant and has
failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true
perspective. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not
properly assessed the income of the appellant-original
claimant and has overlooked the settled principles of law in
relation to the assessment of other conventional heads like
future loss of income as well as pain, shock and suffering, loss
of amenities of life, medical expenses, transportation charges
etc. The learned counsel has urged that the compensation
awarded is not just, fair, and reasonable and it is required to
be enhanced in accordance with the settled legal principles.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
has assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly
considered income of the appellant-original claimant as
Rs.1,500/- per month only without appreciating the evidence
produced on record. He has submitted that the amount
awarded under various other conventional heads are also on
the lower side.
4.2. He has submitted that the learned tribunal ought to have
considered the disability for the purpose of calculation of the
future loss of income considering the fact that how the injury
would cause hardships to continue the work in which the
claimant was involved prior to the accident and would affect
the livelihood of the claimant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1710/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
4.3. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
for the appellant-original claimant has urged this Court to
enhance the amount of compensation accordingly which may
be awarded from the date of filing of claim petition till its
actual realization.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company
has placed reliance upon the findings and reasons assigned by
the Tribunal and submitted that the compensation must be
awarded as just, proper and reasonable and further submitted
that the learned Tribunal, after appreciating the materials
available on record, awarded the compensation under each
head which is just, proper and reasonable and not required to
be interfered in this appeal and lastly prayed to dismiss the
present appeal.
6. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and
perused the record and proceedings and impugned judgment
and award, more particularly, the findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal while considering the issue of
quantum of compensation.
7. As regards the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant-original claimant on the assessment of the
income relying upon the observations made in the impugned
judgment and award, monthly income of Rs.1,600/- would be
just, proper and reasonable. Further, noticing 40 years of age
of the appellant-original claimant as per the disability
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1710/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
certificate issued by the doctor at the time of the accident and
in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi
(supra), 40% towards future prospects of income is required
to be taken into consideration. Noticing the fact that the
claimant was 40 years of age at the time of accident, in light
of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the schedule
prescribed, multiplier of 15 is appropriate. Lastly, the amount
awarded under other conventional heads is required to be
reconsidered accordingly.
8. With regard to the aspect of disability, the Tribunal has
assessed disability of 7.5% of body as a whole. Learned
Tribunal has relied the oral evidence of the applicants. It
appears from the impugned judgment and award that the
learned Tribunal recorded the findings that there is an
altercation in the percentage of disability and the concerned
doctor assessed the disability of 15% and instead of that 45%
disability is shown in the certificate. It appears that the
opponent agreed to consider 50% disability of body as a
whole, however, the learned Tribunal assessed 7.5% disability
of body as a whole. Hence, the same is required to be
reconsidered on the basis of the documentary evidence on
record.
8.1. The appellant-original claimant produced the medical
certificate of GK General Hospital, Bhuj vide Exh.76. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1710/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
appears that the injured claimant primarily taken treatment in
the GK General Hospital, Bhuj and thereafter for the further
treatment shifted in Madhuram Hospital, Rajkot and produced
the injury certificate of Dr. Hemang Vasavada, MS (General
Surgery) MCH (Neuron Surgery) Consulting Neuron and
Trauma Surgeon vide Exh.77 and also produced the disability
certificate issued by Dr. Suresh A. Doshi, MS (Ortho) F.I.C.S.
Orthopedic Surgeon vide Exh.75.
8.2. Considering the medical papers in form of injury
certificate and the disability certificate, it appears from the
certificate issued by Dr. Hemang Vasavada, Neuron Surgeon
at Exh.77 that the original claimant admitted on 24/08/1997
and discharged on 20/10/1997. It appears from the certificate
that the original claimant sustained serious head injuries and
she was operated in the hospital.
8.3. Considering the disability certificate produced vide
Exh.75 and the medical papers produced vide Exh.76, the
appellant original claimant sustained multiple injuries on her
jaw, teeth, ribs and the doctor assessed permanent physicla
disability as 45%. It appears from the disability certificate at
Exh.75 that both the contested parties made an endorsement
to assess the disability of body as a whole as 50%. However,
in the impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal,
without appreciating the facts of serious injuries caused to the
appellant and without considering the endorsement of the
concerned parties, only assessed 7.5% disability which is not
just and proper and reasonable in any corner of appreciation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1710/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
of the important documentary evidence produced on record
relating to the injuries caused on vital part of the body like
head/brain and the injury caused in 5 th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th ribs
and fracture injury on their part. The learned Tribunal also
failed to appreciate the important fact that the injured was
operated by the Neuron Surgeon due to the head injury.
Further, as per say of the husband of the appellant, the
injured claimant is not mentally and physically fit to do the
work
8.4. Under the circumstances and considering the
seriousness of the injuries caused to the appellant as well as
considering the endorsement made by the contesting parties
on the disability certificate, if 22.5% disability of body as a
whole is considered, the same would be just, proper and
reasonable as well as in the interest of justice.
9. Therefore, the appellant-original claimant is entitled to
enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
Compensation As per award under As awarded by this
challenge (Rs.) Court (Rs.)
Income at the time Rs.1,500/- Rs.1,600/-
of the accident.
Prospective income - 40% of Rs.1,600/- =
Rs.640/-
Functional 7.5% of body as a 22.5% of a body as
disability whole a whole.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1710/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
Future loss of Rs.20,250/- Rs.90,720/-
income
Medical expenses Rs.7,000/- Rs.7,000/-
Actual loss of Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,400/-
income
Transportation Rs.3000/- Rs.15,000/-
Charges
Attendance Rs.2000/-
Charges
Pain, shock and Rs.2,500/- Rs.15,000/-
suffering
Total Rs.41,000/- Rs.1,34,120/-
(Rounded Off)
Enhanced amount - Rs.93,120/-
of compensation
Rate of interest 7.5% 7.5.%
10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and
award 06/02/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bhuj-Kachchh in MACP No.867 of 1997 is hereby
modified. The appellant-original claimant is held entitled to
total compensation of an amount of Rs.1,34,120/-. Since by
impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded an
amount of Rs.41,000/-, the appellant-original claimant shall
be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation to the tune
of Rs.93,120/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date
of filing of claim petition till its actual realization. The
respondents-original opponents are held liable to pay such
enhanced amount of compensation as per the award of the
tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1710/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
11. Let, the aforesaid amount be deposited with the
concerned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date
of receipt of the present order. On deposit of the aforesaid
amount, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to release and
disburse the entire award amount in favour of the original
claimant, after due verification as per the original judgment
and award.
12. Let, such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal strictly
in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in this regard; preferably within a period of
two weeks from deposit of such amount. The Tribunal is
directed to realize the deficit Court fees before proceeding
with the disbursement of the amount.
13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
tribunal forthwith, if received.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
