[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Nathabhai Velabhai Vaghela vs Mahendrasinh Kalubhai Jadeja on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2297/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2297 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NATHABHAI VELABHAI VAGHELA
Versus
MAHENDRASINH KALUBHAI JADEJA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BY MANKAD(440) 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. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 02/02/2026
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
07/08/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Auxiliary-8), Gandhidham-Kachchh in MACP No.178 of 2008.
2. Short facts of the claim case are as under:
2.1. On 20/03/2008, the claimant was travelling on motor
cycle bearing registration no.GJ-12-AQ-6258 and going to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2297/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Gavripar village. The claimant was driving his motor cycle in
slow speed and on the left side of the road. On or about 3:00
p.m., when the claimant reached on Trambo road 3 k.m. away
from Rapar, at that time one jeep bearing registration No.GJ-
17-C-3839 driven by opponent No.1 rashly, negligently and at
excessive speed without observing the rules of the road and
safety of the user of the road and collided jeep with the motor
cycle of the claimant. Due to the said accident, the claimant
has sustained serious injuries on left leg knee and right hand
wrist including fracture injuries.
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.5,00,000/-
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 compensation of an amount of
Rs.1,42,040/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual
realization with proportionate costs.
3. Vide order dated 01/12/2015, this Court has admitted
the appeal.
4. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2297/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
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.
4.1. With regard to income of the claimant, learned advocate
has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the
income of the injured and has overlooked the settled
principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
relation to the assessment of future prospects.
4.2. With regard to the injuries and disability of the claimant,
learned advocate has submitted that the claimant has
examined witness Dr. Harish P. Nathani vide Exh.36 and
produced disability certificate vide Exh.37. Said doctor has
examined the injured and also given treatment to him. Said
doctor has stated that he has operated the injured and has
opined that the injuries are grievious in nature as Tibia fibula
fracture on right leg and fracture injury on right wrist as well
as the compound total permanent disability of body as a whole
is 35%, however, the learned Tribunal has assessed 17%
disability of body as a whole which is not just and proper and
required to be interfered.
4.3. Learned advocate has also submitted that the claimant
has suffered actual loss of income for six months, however,
the learned Tribunal has granted only Rs.3,000/-.
4.4. Learned advocate has submitted that the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2297/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Tribunal has awarded a meager and unrealistic amount under
other conventional heads. Learned advocate has therefore
submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is not just, fair, and reasonable and it is required to
be enhanced in accordance with the settled legal principles of
compensation under the MV Act, 1988.
4.5. By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate 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. Per contra, learned advocate for the insurance company
has placed reliance upon the findings and reasons assigned by
the Tribunal and has vehemently argued that in the impugned
judgment and award, learned Tribunal has considered
disability of the claimant on the basis of principle of Kessler
and thereby rightly assessed 17% disability of body as a whole
which is not required to be interfered. He has 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 advocates appearing for the respective
parties and perused the record and proceedings and
impugned judgment and award, more particularly, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2297/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while
considering the issue of quantum of compensation.
7. As regards the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the appellant-original claimant on the issue of
assessment of income of the claimant, without any cogent
evidence for monthly income of the claimant, the Tribunal has
assessed monthly income of Rs.3,000/- which is more than
minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time and
therefore, the same is just, proper and reasonable.
7.1. For the issue of disability, learned advocate for the
insurance company has contended that the learned Tribunal
assessed 17% disability of body as a whole is just, proper and
reasonable. The claimant has examined Dr. Harish Nathani at
Exh.36 wherein he has stated that the claimant has taken
treatment from his hospital and after examination of the
claimant, he has found that the claimant has fracture on right
leg and fracture on right hand wrist. He has further stated
that he has operated the claimant and opined that the injuries
were serious in nature. He has further stated that he has
found 40% disability on right hand wrist and 30% disability on
right leg. He has opined 35% disability of body as a whole.
He has produced disability certificate vide Exh.37 wherein the
doctor has assessed 35% disability of body as a whole.
7.1.1. The opponent insurance company has cross
examined Dr. Harish Nathani. It appears from the cross
examination that the respondent insurance company has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2297/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
cross examined on the facts of the disability certificate
produced vide Exh.37. Under the circumstances, at this
stage, contention raised by the insurance company cannot be
acceptable.
7.1.2. Considering the ocular evidence of the doctor
witness and disability certificate produced vide Exh.37, the
doctor has assessed 70% disability of the injured claimant and
body as a whole 35% disability. The Tribunal has failed to
consider the disability certificate, Exh.37 and without
recording any sound reasons, assessed 17% disability of body
as a whole which is not just and proper and required to be
interfered. Considering the nature of work of meson, if
disability of the claimant is considered as 35% of body as a
whole, the same would be in the interest of justice.
7.2. As regards future rise of income is concerned, the age of
the claimant, injury sustained by the claimant and nature of
work of the claimant is required to be considered. Looking to
the nature of injury sustained by the claimant, it is the duty of
the Court to place victim close as possible to pre-accident
lives and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh
Kumar and others reported in 2020 ACJ 2695 and in view
of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% future prospects of
income is required to be taken into consideration.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2297/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
7.3. Considering the 26 years of age of the claimant at the
time of accident as observed by the Tribunal in view of
disability certificate, 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 17 is
appropriate.
7.4 For the claim of amount of actual loss of income,
considering actual period of treatment and nature of injury,
the appellant claimant is entitled to receive Rs.9,000/-
(Rs.3,000/- x 3). Lastly, the amount awarded under other
conventional heads are required to be reconsidered
accordingly.
8. Therefore, the appellant-original claimant is entitled to
receive enhanced amount as computed hereunder:
Compensation As per award under As awarded by this
challenge (Rs.) Court (Rs.)
Income at the time Rs.3,000/- Rs.3,000/-
of the accident.
Prospective income - 40% (3000 x 40% =
1200). So,
Rs.4,200/-.
Functional 17% 35% (So, 35% of
disability Rs.4,200 =
Rs,1,470/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2297/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Future loss of Rs.1,04,040/- Rs.2,99,880/-
income
Medical expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
Diet, transportation Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-
and attendant
charges
Actual loss of Rs.3,000/- Rs.9,000/- (3000 x
income 3)
Pain, shock and Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/-
suffering
Total Rs.1,42,040/- Rs.3,68,880/-
Enhanced amount - Rs.2,26,840/-
of compensation
Rate of interest 9% 7.5%
9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and
award dated 07/08/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary-8), Gandhidham-Kachchh in MACP No.178
of 2008 is hereby modified. The appellant-original claimant is
held entitled to total compensation of an amount of
Rs.3,68,880/-. Since by impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,42,040/-, the
appellant-original claimant shall be entitled to enhanced
amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,26,840/-
(Rs.3,68,880/- - Rs.1,42,040/-) 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/2297/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
tribunal forthwith, if received.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
