[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Ajaykumar Samantbhai Parmar vs Pravinkumar Kantibhai Patel on 20 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1233/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1233 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AJAYKUMAR SAMANTBHAI PARMAR
Versus
PRAVINKUMAR KANTIBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 20/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the
impugned judgment and award dated 30.09.2014 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & 3 rd
Additional District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No.
797 of 2012, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed
the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.74,800/- along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of
filing of the Claim Petition till its realization, as compensation.
2. The succinct facts which led to the filing of the captioned
appeal, as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1233/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
under:-
i. On 31.05.2012, at about 11:00 a.m., the original
claimant/appellant herein - Mr. Ajaykumar Parmar,
who was a minor at the time of the accident, was
standing on the road side, with his grandmother. In
the meantime, original opponent No.1/respondent
No.1 herein came by driving his motorcycle bearing
registration No. GJ-7-B-G-7535 in a rash and negligent
manner and at an excessive speed, and dashed with
the original claimant/appellant herein, thereby
causing the accident. In the said vehicular accident,
the claimant/appellant herein sustained grievous
injuries to his body.
ii. It is averred in the Claim Petition that at the time of
the vehicular accident, the claimant/appellant herein
was a minor aged about 8 years, and he had sustained
grievous injuries, including disabilities to his body and
had been treated both as an indoor and outdoor
patient. Therefore, Claim Petition was preferred
before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation to
the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.
iii.Having been served with the notices/summons of the
Claim Petition, original opponent No.1/respondent
No.1 herein - driver cum owner of the offending
Motorcycle, had chosen not to appear before the
learned Tribunal, while original opponent
No.2/respondent No.2 herein - Insurance Company
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1233/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
had filed its Written Statement at Exh.20, thereby
denying the averments made in the Claim Petition and
in brief, prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the
material available on record, the learned Tribunal
framed the following issues for determination:-
1. Whether the applicant proves that he had
sustained injuries because of rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver,
opponent No.1 of the vehicle involved in the
accident ?
2. What the applicant is entitled to get
compensation ? If yes, what amount and from
whom ?
3. What award and order ?
v. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record
and the submissions advanced by the learned
counsels for the respective parties, the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.74,800/- along with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of
the Claim Petition till its realization, as compensation.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the original Claimant/appellant
herein has preferred the captioned appeal, seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1233/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
learnedTribunal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted that at the
time of the vehicular accident, the original claimant/appellant
herein was a minor, aged about 8 years and he was a student.
He further submitted that the original claimant/appellant
herein had sustained the disability of 26% body as a whole,
however, with the consent of the parties, the disability was
reduced to 11% body as a whole. He contended that
considering the fact that the claimant/appellant herein was a
minor at the time of accident, and had sustained the disability
as agreed between the parties to the extent of 11% body as a
whole, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a
lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the
head of Pain and suffering already undergone and to be
suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship,
inconvenience, and discomforts, etc., and loss of amenities of
life on account of permanent disability, in accordance with the
ratio of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited. & Anr. reported in 2014 (14) SCC
396. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned
counsel for the original claimant/appellant herein submitted
that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
required to be enhanced, and impugned judgment and award
be modified accordingly.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1233/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
5. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company vehemently submitted
that the learned Tribunal had awarded just compensation
under all heads, as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment and award. He contended that the instant appeal is
devoid of any merits and the captioned appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused the material
available on record, it is to be noted that there is no dispute
regarding the minority and the disability sustained by the
claimant/appellant herein. Thus, the case of the
claimant/appellant herein is squarely covered by the ratio of
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Master Mallikarjun (supra). In Master Mallikarjun (supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 12 had observed as under:-
"Though it is difficult to have an accurate
assessment of the compensation in the case of
children suffering disability on account of a motor
vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant
factors, precedents and the approach of various
High Courts, we are of the view that the
appropriate compensation on all other heads in
addition to the actual expenditure for treatment,
attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above
10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs;
upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and
above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For
permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs.1
lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to
take different yardstick............"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1233/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
7. Therefore, in view of the ratio of judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun
(supra), the original claimant/appellant herein is entitled for a
lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the
head of Pain and suffering already undergone and to be
suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship,
inconvenience, and discomforts, etc., and loss of amenities of
life on account of permanent disability.
8. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,141/-
under the head of Medical expenses. The learned Tribunal had
awarded the said amount on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the original claimant/appellant herein on record.
The learned Tribunal had also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-
under the head of Special Diet, attendant and transportation
charges. In my considered opinion, the compensation awarded
under the aforesaid heads are just and proper, hence, no
interference is required under these heads, and the same are
accordingly maintained.
9. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the original
claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for the following
amount of compensation:
Sr. Head Amount in rupees
No.
Pain and suffering already undergone and
3,00,000/-
to be suffered in future, mental and physical
shock, hardship, inconvenience, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1233/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
discomforts, etc., and loss of amenities of
life on account of permanent disability.
2 Medical expenses. (+) 30,141/-
Special Diet, attendant charges and
3 (+) 5,000/-
transportation
4 Total Compensation 3,35,141/-
Compensation awarded by the learned
5 Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and (-) 74,800/-
award.
6 Enhanced amount of Compensation Rs.2,60,341/-
10. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for an additional
compensation to the tune of Rs.2,60,341/-. The learned
Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. The
said rate of interest is maintained; accordingly, the original
claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled to 7.5% of interest
per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the
date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
11. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal
stands allowed, and the impugned judgment and award is
modified accordingly.
12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest within
a period of six weeks from today. Upon depositing the said
amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire
awarded amount to the original claimant/appellant herein
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1233/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
(deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
13. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the
Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned
Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any
be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to
costs.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN..
