[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Umiya Nitingar Goswami vs Pratapbhai Valabhdas Chthani on 5 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2797 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
UMIYA NITINGAR GOSWAMI
Versus
PRATAPBHAI VALABHDAS CHTHANI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 05/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 has been preferred by the appellant-original claimant.
against the judgment and award dated 26.04.2018 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Bhuj-Kutch in
MACP No.32 of 2014.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though
served, none appears for respondent No.1.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of the
accident, after offering prayers at Drabudi Temple, the applicant
was returning to Village Gundiyari along with her mother,
sisters, and other relatives and was walking on the extreme left
side of the road on the kacha portion. At about 12:15 p.m., when
they reached near the place of the accident, Opponent No. 1
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
approached from behind driving his Hyundai car bearing
Registration No. GJ-12-AE-8489 in a rash and negligent manner
and at an excessive speed. He suddenly lost control of the
vehicle, causing the car to hit the applicant from behind and
drag her for some distance. As a result, the applicant sustained
serious injuries and suffered permanent disability.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the documents
produced on record and did not correctly assess the income of
the victim, who has suffered severe bodily disability. It is further
submitted that the Tribunal did not award any compensation
under the head of loss of marriage prospects, even though the
victim, being a minor girl, had to undergo amputation of her
right leg. Instead, only a meagre amount of Rs. 8,000/- was
awarded under the head of pain, shock, and suffering. It was
further contended that the evidence on record, including the
certificates issued by the Orthopaedic Surgeon, remained
unchallenged. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal
committed an error in not considering minimum wages, which
ought to have been taken into account, particularly when the
right leg had been amputated and the disability was assessed at
only 36%. Though the doctor was examined at Exhibit 33, the
learned Tribunal ignored this aspect and considered only a
notional income of Rs. 24,000/-. It was also submitted that the
Tribunal failed to award amounts under the conventional heads,
even though the claimant was a minor and had suffered
considerable hardship. For these reasons as well, just and
proper compensation is required to be awarded under the head
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
of pain, shock, and suffering. Therefore, considering the loss
suffered due to her physical disability, interference by this Court
is called for for enhancement of the compensation.
5. On the contrary, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent No.2 has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted
that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper
compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It was
contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and,
therefore, no interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed
that the appeal be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears
that the appeal has been filed on the ground of quantum, and
the question of contributory negligence in the case of a minor is
not required to be considered. After appreciating the evidence
produced on record and relying upon the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009
SC 2819, and Parmeshwar(i) Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11
SCC 635, the learned Tribunal has concluded that the alleged
accident occurred due to the sole negligence of Opponent No. 1,
and the said finding does not warrant interference. The
involvement of the vehicle, liability, and coverage under the
insurance policy are not in dispute.
7. So far as the question of quantum is concerned, it appears
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of
the claimant at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. It is needless to state
that even in the case of a minor, as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai
Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1070,
the Tribunal or the High Court, while dealing with a case
involving a child who has suffered injuries or has died, is
required to assess loss of income on the basis of the minimum
wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State at the
relevant point of time i.e. Rs.5,750/-
8. Considering the nature of injury and age of the victim and
has sustained the partial permanent disability and other
consequential losses of said injury, claimant is entitled for
getting the compensation in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and
Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 wherein it has been held
that the Tribunal shall award the compensation very
conservatively keeping in mind the degree of deprivation and the
loss caused by such deprivation which can be termed as "just
compensation" as insured / injured claimant has to face the
consequences throughout her life and that should not be any
token damages. Even, in the case of Master Ayush vs. Branch
Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and
Anr. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, relying on the decision in
the case of Kajal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
observing in paragraph No.7 as under:-
"7. It was also argued that in a judgment reported
as Kajal v. Jagdish Chand 2, the injured was a 12
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
years old girl who had suffered an injury to the extent
that her IQ got less than 20% as compared to a child of
her age and the medical board had assessed her
social age to be only of a 9-months' old child. This
Court had recognized that Schedule II of the Act could
be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in
each case. This Court in the aforesaid case held as
under (SCC pp. 419, 421 & 426, paras 6, 12 & 27)
"6. It is impossible to equate human
suffering and personal deprivation with
money. However, this is what the Act
enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has
to make a judicious attempt to award
damages, so as to compensate the claimant
for the loss suffered by the victim. On the
one hand, the compensation should not be
assessed very conservatively, but on the
other hand, the compensation should also
not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as
to make it a bounty to the claimant. The
court while assessing the compensation
should have regard to the degree of
deprivation and the loss caused by such
deprivation. Such compensation is what is
termed as just compensation. The
compensation or damages assessed for
personal injuries should be substantial to
compensate the injured for the deprivation
suffered by the injured throughout his/her
life. They should not be just token damages.
xxx xxx xxx
12. The assesment of damages in personal
injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not
easy to convert the physical and mental loss
into monetary terms. There has to be a
measure of calculated guesswork and
conjecture. An assessment, as best as can,
in the circumstances, should be made.
1) xxx xxx xxx
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
27. One factor which must be kept in mind
while assessing the compensation in a case
like the present one is that the claim can be
awarded only once. The claimant cannot
come back to court for enhancement of
award at a later stage praying that
something extra has been spent. Therefore,
the courts or the Tribunals assessing the
compensation in a case of 100% disability,
especially where there is mental disability
also, should take a liberal view of the matter
when awarding the compensation. While
awarding this amount, we are not only
taking the physical disability but also the
mental disability and various other factors.
This child will remain bedridden for life. Her
mental age will be that of a nine-month-old
child. Effectively, while her body grows, she
will remain a small baby. We are dealing
with a girl who will physically become a
woman but will mentally remain a 9-month-
old child. This girl will miss out playing with
her friends. She cannot communicate; she
cannot enjoy the pleasures of life; she
cannot even be amused by watching
cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of
childhood, the excitement of youth; the
pleasures of a marital life; she cannot have
children who she can love, let alone
grandchildren. She will have no pleasure.
Her's is a vegetable existence. Therefore, we
feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case even after taking a very
conservative view of the matter an amount
payable for the pain and suffering of this
child should be at least Rs 15,00,000."
9. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case
relating to a minor has considered the multiplier of 18. As the
learned Tribunal has not relied upon the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal (supra), an error has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
been committed by the learned Tribunal in applying a multiplier
of 15.
10. Further, compensation is required to be awarded once and
for all, as the victim is not at fault, and it is the duty of the
Tribunal to award just compensation. Considering the overall
facts and circumstances relating to the treatment undergone by
the claimant, mental agony, pain, disablement, loss of future
earning capacity, expenditure incurred towards hospitalization,
nutritious diet, and attendant charges, the said aspects were
required to be duly taken into consideration. However, the
learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated these factors and
has failed to award just compensation under the heads of non-
pecuniary damages, including loss of amenities. It is also
pertinent to observe that adopting a sensitive approach is crucial
for the Tribunal, as it plays a vital role in ensuring not only
justice to the victim of a motor accident but also in determining
fair and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal is expected to
act with empathy so as to prevent further trauma, since victims
of road accidents and their families often suffer severe physical
and emotional distress, and a humane approach by the
adjudicating authority instils a sense of support and
understanding.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited and Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its decision in the case of
Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar reported in (2022) 13 SCC
790 has observed and held in paragraph 113 as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be
underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that
Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only
permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities
but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars
upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's
having to live in a world entirely different from the one she
or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of
dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice
or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind,
whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe
limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the
dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic
component of the right to life under Article 21 of the
individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the
right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived,
hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is
thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most
discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award
niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there
is resultant affront to the injured victim."
12. In view of the above, the minimum wages prevailing at the
time of the accident are required to be considered. In the present
case, for the year 2013, the prevalent minimum wages were
Rs.5,750/- per month. Adding future prospects at the rate of
40%, the monthly income would come to Rs.8,050/- (Rs.5,750 +
Rs.2,300). Applying the multiplier of 18, as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ
2700, the total loss of income would be Rs.8,050 × 12 × 18 =
Rs.17,38,800/-.
13. Now coming to the aspect of disablement, the doctor
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
initially opined that the claimant had suffered 90% disability
and, in the cross-examination, admitted that the disability of the
body as a whole would be required to be considered at 36%. The
learned Tribunal accepted the said percentage, which is unjust
and improper. Considering the amputation of the right leg and
the age of the claimant, the learned Tribunal has, without
assigning any reasons, straightaway accepted 36% disability. It
is needless to state that physical disability and functional
disability stand on different footings, particularly when the
amputation stump length is only 6.5 cm below the knee. Having
regard to the nature of injuries, the claimant cannot walk
without support and cannot perform heavy work.
14. Considering these facts, as well as the medical evidence
produced at Exhibit 33, and the injuries specified for permanent
partial disablement in Schedule I, Part II of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, in cases of amputation of the lower limb
below the knee but not exceeding 12.7 cm, hence 50%
permanent functional disability is required to be considered.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error to that
extent. Accordingly, the amount towards future loss of income
would come to Rs.17,38,800 × 50% = Rs.8,69,400/-.
15. So far as pain, shock and suffering are concerned, the
learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/-. In view of the ratio
laid down in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.
Murlidhara v. R. Subbulakshmi, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3385, and Reshma v. Dajiba Krishna Lad and
Another, reported in 2025 INSC 1320, the amount awarded
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
under the said head is required to be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-
from Rs.80,000/-.
16. It appears that Rs.1,22,000/- has been awarded towards
medical expenses by the Tribunal, which appears to be just and
proper and needs no interference. However, the learned Tribunal
has committed an error in awarding compensation under the
head of disfigurement, which is required to be considered under
other permissible heads and which are considered accordingly.
This Court has, therefore, reassessed the compensation under
other heads: Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects,
whereas the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.70,000/- and
Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of
life, whereas the Tribunal had awarded Rs.80,000/- under the
said head. The claimant is also entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- towards
artificial limb and future medical expenses also and
Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet, attendant charges and
transportation.
17. As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to
compensation which is reassessed and computed as under:
Heads Amount
Future loss of income Rs.8,69,400/-.
Pain, shock and sufferings Rs.5,00,000/-
loss of marriage prospect. Rs.3,00,000/-
Loss of amenities and loss of Rs.2,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2797/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
Artificial Limb Rs.1,50,000/-
Special diet, attendant and Rs.1,00,000/-
transportation
Total compensation Rs.21,19,400/-
18. Hence, present appeals are partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and award is hereby modified to Rs.21,19,400/- from
Rs.8,77,000/-. The appellant would be entitled to get additional
amount of Rs.12.42,400/- with proportionate costs and interest
as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The opponents shall deposit
said additional amount before the Tribunal within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
19. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith. The 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)
ALI
