[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rakeshgiri Arvindgiri Goswami vs Yakub Abdulrahim Bhana on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3623 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=======================================================
RAKESHGIRI ARVINDGIRI GOSWAMI
Versus
YAKUB ABDULRAHIM BHANA & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MUHAMMADYUSUF M KHARADI(9509) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 06.07.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux), Anand, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"
for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.351 of 2014, the
appellant - original claimant preferred present appeals under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellant -
original Claimant and Mr. M.M.Kharadi, learned cdvocate for
respondent no.2 and Mr.Rathin Raval, learned advocate for
respondent No.3.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 28.02.2014, the appellant
was going from Vasad towards Umreth by driving a rickshaw
bearing No.GJ-23-U-1984, at that time, one TATA Sumo bearing
No.GJ-17-N-9467 came from wrong side of the road in rash and
negligent manner and dashed with the rickshaw. As a result of
which the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the
appellant has filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After
appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned
Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded compensation of Rs.1,45,840/- against the claim of
Rs.5,00,000/-.
4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
Tribunal has committed error by holding 20% negligence of the
appellant as the opponent No.1 has not examined driver of the
offending vehicle to give any rebuttal evidence. Further, the
Tribunal has also committed error by considering the income of
the appellant as Rs.4,000/- p.m, which ought to have considered
as Rs.9,000/- as the deceased was engaged in occupation of
driving of heavy vehicles. Hence, he has requested to enhance
the compensation amount in the appeal.
5) Learned Advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the Insurance Company
has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper
and no interference is required to call for. With these
submissions he has requested to dismissed the appeal.
6) Having heard learned counsel for both sides and upon perusal of
the material placed on record, it is evident that the involvement
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
of the offending vehicle and the coverage of the insurance
policy are not in dispute. To substantiate their case, the
claimants have produced documentary evidence i.e. FIR at
Exh.39, Panchnama at Exh.40, chargesheet at Exh:44, school
leaving certificate at Exh:45, Disability Certificate at Exh:62.
Therefore, the appeal is required to be decided in a narrow
compass, qua the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the claimant. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, the
Tribunal has held that the appellant has sustained injuries on
account of rashness and negligent driving on the part of driver
of the offending vehicle TATA sumo. In the pleadings, it clearly
stated that Sumo car came from wrong side and dashed with
the rickshaw. The claimant being eyewitness tendered the
evidence and on the part of the insurance company, said part
qua negligence remained unchallenged and nowhere
challenged the said document or averments that the TATA
sumo caem from opposite direction on the wrong side.
Considering the same, the Tribunal has committed error by
holding 80% negligent the driver of the Sumo car. From the
panchnama, it reveals that the rickshaw was damaged heavily
compared to the Sumo car and driver of Sumo car has not been
examined and thus, adverser inference against him is required
to be drawn. The Tribunal has also held that the driver of TATA
sumo car was more negligent than the driver of rickshaw.
Further, the witness has not stepped into the witness box and
claimant himself is the eyewitness to the accident, who stated
that due to sole negligence of the Sumo car, accident occurred.
Nothing has emerged from his cross-examination to establish
that he was negligent in causing the accident. In view of the
above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
has committed error in holding the appellant 20 % negligent in
causing the accident.
7) So far as contributory negligence is concerned, mere allegation
that the rickshaw driver - appellant was negligent is insufficient
and amounts to mere lip service. On the basis of the principle of
preponderance of probabilities, the burden lies upon Insurance
Company to establish such defence. Contributory negligence
cannot be inferred on presumptions and assumptions. The
standard of proof required is that of preponderance of
probabilities, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Reliance
is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 394. In view thereof, the
Tribunal has committed error in attributing 20% contributory
negligence to the appellant.
8) 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 prevalent minimum
wages in absence of ample evidence of monthly income of the
appellant. In the present case, the accident occurred in
February, 2014 and during that time, as per the Government
approved minimum wages was Rs.5,500/-, whereas, the Tribunal
has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per
month which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income
of the injured is reassessed as Rs.5,500/- per month.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
9) So far as disability is concerned, the appellant has produced a
disability certificate issued by Dr. S.K.Kshastri at Exh:62, which
shows that the doctor has assessed 35% permanent disability
for the body as a whole. However, both the parties agreed to
assess the disability at 15 % for the body as a whole by giving a
Pursis at Exh:61. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
disability to the extent of 15%.
10) In the present case, the accident occurred in February, 2014 and
during that time, the appellant - injured was doing driving work
and agriculture work and the Tribunal has assessed the income
of the injured as Rs.4,000/- per month which is required to be
enhanced and hence, the income of the injured is reassessed as
Rs.5,500/- per month. As the Tribunal has considered disability
of the injured as 15% and multiplier of 16 were considered by
the learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which are just and
proper. Now if we reassess the compensation with reassessed
income of the injured Rs.5,500/- p.m income on adding future
prospects income at 40 %, then it would come to Rs.7,700/- p.m.
So per annum income comes to Rs.92,400/- and by applying 16
multiplier and deduction of 15 % disability, it comes to
Rs.2,21,760/- (92,400/- x 16 multiplier x 15 % disability) under
the head of future loss of income.
11) As the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,15,200/- towards
future loss of income, the appellant is entitled to get additional
amount of Rs.1,06,560/- under the head of future loss of
income.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
12) So far other conventional heads are concerned, this Court
deems fit not to interfere with the same.
13) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get
compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of Rs.1,15,200/- Rs.2,21,760/-
income
Actual loss of Rs.12,000/- Rs.12,000/-
income
Mental Pain, shock Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
and sufferings
Transportation, Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Special diet, and
attendant charges
Medical bills Rs.35,100/- Rs.35,100/-
Negligence Rs.36,460/-
(deducting 20%)
Total Rs.1,45,840/- Rs.2,88,860/-
compensation
14) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.1,45,840/-, however, as discussed above
the appellant would be entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.1,43,020/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
15) Hence, present appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and
award dated 06.07.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux), Anand, (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.351 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
2014 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the
judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of
Rs.1,43,020/- 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.
16) 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)
SUCHIT
