[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dipakkumar Dilipbhai Lohana vs Ranjitsinh Dalubhai Bariya (Deleted) on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3132/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3132 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
DIPAKKUMAR DILIPBHAI LOHANA
Versus
RANJITSINH DALUBHAI BARIYA (DELETED) & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) 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
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Dahod at Limkheda (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.54 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.800 of 2009), the
appellant - original claimant has preferred the present appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall
hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. M M. Hakim, for the appellant - original
Claimant and learned Advocate Mr. G. C. Mazmudar, for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3132/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
respondent no.3 - Insurance Company. The respondent no.2 was
duly served but did not appear before this Court. Perused the
original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellant - original claimant that on 13.8.2009
the applicant was going with his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-
P-9007, as a pillion rider and his friend Sureshkumar was riding the
motorcycle. The opponent no.1 came with his truck bearing Reg.
No.GJ-16-V-4391, in rash and negligent manner through Pipliod
market and dashed the motorcycle on Randhikpur road. Due to
which the applicant and his friend sustained grievous injuries.
Therefore, the appellant had filed MAC Petition seeking
compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the
evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal has partly
allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed error while assessing the income of the
appellant as he was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from
business of Mobile repairing and STD PCO Shop, whereas, the
Tribunal has only considered Rs.4,000/-. He has further submitted
that the appellant suffered fracture which led to paraparesis and
restricted movement and hence the Tribunal ought to have
considered 100% functional disability of the appellant. He has
further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in awarding meagre
amount towards non pecuniary loss to the appellant. Hence, he has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3132/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent - Insurance Company has
opposed the present appeal and submitted that the learned
Tribunal has properly considered the income and 28% disability of
the appellant on the basis of pursis passed by the parties and
awarded just and proper compensation. Hence, he has requested to
dismiss the present appeal.
6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and
going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has
considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in
the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC
2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in
2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence. The claimant
has tendered the affidavit wherein all the facts of the accident have
been narrated in the chief-examination at Exhibit 19 and supported
the claim petition and relied on the FIR, panchnama, Disability
Certificate etc., exhibited vide 21 to 33 (Colly.). The driver of Truck
has not stepped into the witness box and the evidence was
appreciated based on preponderance of probabilities and held driver
of the Truck solely negligent in occurrence of the accident. The
factum of accident, involvement of the vehicles, negligence and
liability are not disputed in the present appeal.
7) Now the appeal is filed on limited ground qua enhancement of
quantum hence the appeal is required to be decided in narrow
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3132/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
compass. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is
produced on the record then Tribunal has to consider prevailing
rate of minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income
of the claimant. In the present case the accident occurred on
13.08.2009 and during that time the appellant - injured was
running business of selling and repairing mobiles and STD PCO
shop and as per the Government approved minimum wages the
rate for skilled person was Rs.3,860/-, whereas, the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month
which is just and proper and does not call for interference. It
appears that the learned Tribunal has observed the age of claimant
as 23 years at the time of accident and the learned Tribunal has
committed error in not considering future prospect, however, this
Court is of the view that 40% addition towards future
prospectus is required to be awarded. Reference is required to be
made to National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700. So far the issue of disability is
concerned, the Tribunal has considered disability at 28% body as a
whole on the basis of pursis passed by the parties and hence when
the parties consented for the disability at 28% question does not
arise to reagitate the said issue of disability before this appellate
forum. Accordingly, the Tribunal has not committed any error in
assessing the disability at 28% and the same is just and proper.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3132/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
8) Further, considering the age of claimant as 23 years at the time of
accident the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 18 which as per
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma
& Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC
121] is just and proper and no interference of this Court is
required. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,99,751/- towards
Medical Expense as per Exhibit 33, which is just and proper and
also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards Transportation, special diet and
attendant charges which is also just and proper.
9) Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.1,600/- which comes to
Rs.5,600/-. Now total income under the head of future loss of
income is required to be considered as Rs.5,600/- x 12 x 18 x
28%/ 100 = Rs.3,38,688/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to
get additional amount of Rs.96,768/- towards future loss of
income. Similarly, considering the nature of injuries, period of
treatment, younger age and disablement of the claimant, this Court
is of the view that the learned Tribunal has committed error while
considering pain, shock and suffering only Rs.25,000/- which is
required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- i.e. additional amount of
Rs.25,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. The Tribunal
has also committed error by awarding actual loss of income only for
2 months, however, considering the period of hospitalization the
awarded amount of Rs.8,000/- is enhanced for 5 months i.e.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3132/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
Rs.20,000/- towards actual loss of income.
10) As discussed above, the appellant - injured - original claimant is
entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.2,41,920/- Rs.3,38,688/-
including additional
amount of Rs.96,768/-
Actual medical Rs.2,99,751/- Rs.2,99,751/-
expenses
Pain, shock and Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/-
suffering including additional
amount of Rs.25,000/-
Actual loss of income Rs.8,000/- Rs.20,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.12,000/-
Transportation, Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
special diet and
attendant charges
Total compensation Rs.5,99,671/- Rs.7,33,439/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.1,33,768/-
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.5,99,671/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,33,768/- (Rs.7,33,439/-
- Rs.5,99,671/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod at Limkheda, in MAC Petition No.54 of 2018
(Old MAC Petition No.800 of 2009) stands modified to the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3132/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2026
undefined
extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The
respondent no.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit the said
additional amount of Rs.1,33,768/- along with interest as
awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and
proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
13) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
14) Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.
15) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
