[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Lalsinh Kanaksinh Chauhan vs Kamleshbhai Jitendrabhai Patel on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4162/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4162 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
LALSINH KANAKSINH CHAUHAN
Versus
KAMLESHBHAI JITENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) 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 HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") is filed by the appellant - original
claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
09.11.2022 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.),
Nadiad (for short "learned Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.548 of 2019, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly
allow the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.16,59,700/-
to the appellant - original claimant with 7.5 interest per annum.
[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal is as follows:
[2.1] On 14.04.2019, the appellant - original claimant was driving his
motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-07-BH-2313 on correct side as
well as in moderate speed and when he reached at the place of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4162/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
accident, original opponent No.1 came driving his Wagon-R Car No.GJ-
18-AA-5936 and while overtaking another vehicle, came on wrong side
and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant thereby causing serious
and multiple injuries to the claimant. Therefore, the original claimant
filed MACP No.548/2019 seeking compensation of Rs.30 lakh.
[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the driver of Wagon-R Car solely negligent for
the accident and was pleased to award Rs.16,59,700/- to the original
claimant. However, being aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation, present First Appeal is filed by the appellant - original
claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
[3.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not appeared
before the Court.
[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the appellant
- original claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has
committed an error in not considering 100% functional disability of
the claimant considering the physical condition of the claimant. He has
further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding only Rs.1 lakh towards pain, shock and suffering and even
under other heads also, meager compensation is awarded. Hence, he
has requested to allow the present appeal.
[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar for the respondent No.3 -
insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award
and has requested to dismiss the first appeal.
[6.0] Since the only issue raised in the present appeal is with regard
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4162/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
to quantum of compensation and negligence or liability aspect is not
challenged, present appeal is considered in narrow compass.
[7.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant - original
claimant and learned advocate for the insurance company and
perusing the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has
considered the evidence produced and adduced by both the parties
including the affidavit of the claimant (Exh.32), complaint (Exh.35),
panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.36) and in view of the decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C.
reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, wherein it is held that negligence is
required to be proved in claim petition under section 166 of the MV
Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability and
not beyond doubt, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
in coming to the conclusion that the driver of Wagon-R Car was solely
negligent for the accident.
[8.0] So far as challenge to quantum of compensation is concerned,
after arguing for some time, learned advocate Mr. Bhalodi appearing
for the original claimant has not pressed qua non-consideration of
100% functional disability of the claimant and perssed for
enhancement of compensation under the heads of pain, shock and
suffering, actual loss of income, future prospective income, loss of
amenities, special attendant charges.
[9.0] Perusing the record and evidence, it appears that the claimant
was aged 42 years which is corroborated by age of the claimant
mentioned in discharge card as well as disability certificate and
therefore, the claimant was in the age group of 41 to 45 years and
therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4162/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
14 in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.
Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported
in 2009 ACJ 1298. Now, so far as income of the claimant is concerned,
there is no cogent or reliable evidence produced on record as regards
income of the claimant which fact has been admitted by the claimant
in his cross-examination and therefore, his monthly income is assessed
at Rs.9,200/- as per the minimum wages of unskilled worker / labourer
prevalent in the year 2019 as the accident took place in the year 2019
and therefore, annual income of the claimant is rightly considered at
Rs.1,10,400/- however, the learned Tribunal has not considered future
prospective income of the claimant, which ought to have been
considered at 25% in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Adding 25% towards future
prospects, future prospective annual income of the claimant would
come to Rs.1,38,000/- [Rs.1,10,400 + Rs.27,600 (25% of Rs.1,10,400)]
and assessing the same with 75% disability, monthly loss of income to
the appellant - original claimant would be Rs.1,03,500/- (75% of
Rs.1,38,000/-) and applying multiplier of 14, the claimant is entitled to
Rs.14,49,000/- (Rs.1,03,500 x 14) under the head of future loss of
income.
[9.1] Perusing the evidence on record, it appears that the claimant
has sustained multiple fractures and he had to spent Rs.30,000/-
towards transportation. Perusing the disability certificate (Exh.34)
issued by Dr. Bhadresh Shah, it appears that the claimant had
sustained following injuries.
(1) Fracture clavicle right side with brachial plexus injury;
(2) Open grade 2 comminuted fracture distal femur with
segmental fracture right side;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4162/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
(3) Crush injury right foot with fracture 2 metatarsal and
amputation of medial three toes;
(4) Was operated for fractures on right femur with plating
and clavicle was fixed with plate. After sometime the plate on
femur broke and he underwent revision surgery with plating and
bone grafting.
Complaints
Upper Limb
There is no movement of right shoulder elbow and wrist and
hand, there is complete paralysis of right upper limb with loss of
sensation over right upper limb. He is right handed person.
Lower Limb
He cannot walk without support. He limps on walking. He has to
keep a stick for walking. With a stick he can walk for few steps
only. He cannot squat and sit cross legged at all. He feels
weakness in right lower limb. There is marked restriction of
mobility of right knee joint. There is amputation of medial three
toes on right foot."
Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, it appears
that the right hand of the claimant has become paraplegic to some
extent. Hence, compensation under the head of pain, shock and
suffering of Rs.1 lakh is on lower side considering the nature of
disability and is required to be enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/-. Even, the
learned Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities which in the
considered opinion of this Court ought to have been awarded at
Rs.2,00,000/-. Similarly, compensation under the head of special diet,
attendant charges and transportation is required to be enhanced to
Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.70,000/-. Further, the compensation under the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4162/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
head of actual loss of income of Rs.55,200/- and Rs.2,75,300/- towards
medical expenses does not require any interference.
[9.2] Thus, now the appellant - original claimant is entitled to the
compensation as under:
Heads Amount Reassessed by
awarded by the this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.11,59,200/- Rs.14,49,000/-
Actual loss of income Rs.55,200/- Rs.55,200/-
Pain, shock and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,50,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.2,75,300/- Rs.2,75,300/-
Special diet, attendant and Rs.70,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
transportation charges
Loss of Amenities NIL Rs.2,00,000/-
Total... Rs.16,59,700/- Rs.24,29,500/-
Thus, total compensation of Rs.16,59,700/- as awarded by the
learned Tribunal is on lower side, for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, and therefore, same is required to be reassessed to the
aforesaid extent i.e. Rs.24,29,500/- and hence, the appellant - original
claimant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.7,69,800/-
(Rs.24,29,500 - Rs.16,59,700) towards compensation and therefore,
the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is
required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
[10.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal is
allowed and impugned judgment and award dated 09.11.2022 by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Nadiad in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.548 of 2019 is modified and respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4162/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
No.3 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit reassessed amount of
compensation of Rs.24,29,500/- alongwith accrued interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum, with the learned Tribunal within a period of FOUR
WEEKS from the date of receipt of the present judgment. Rest of the
impugned judgment and award remains unaltered.
[10.1] After the aforesaid amount of reassessed compensation is
deposited by the insurance company, learned Tribunal is directed to
disburse the entire amount alongwith the accrued interest thereon, if
any, in favor of the original claimant, by account payee cheque /
NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
[11.0] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid.
[12.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
