[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Madhuben Ganpatbhai Harijan vs Kirankumar Jagdishbhai Parmar on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1835/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1835 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MADHUBEN GANPATBHAI HARIJAN
Versus
KIRANKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 24/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 11.08.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahals at Halol, (hereinafter referred to as
"the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.3082
of 2017, 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. K. K. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the appellant -
original Claimant and Ms. Karuna Rahevar, learned Advocate for
respondent no.3. Though served, none appears for respondent
Nos.1 and 2. Perused the original record and proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1835/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 29.11.2016, the appellant
being pedestrian was returning towards home after performing
her duty, at that time one motorcycle bearing No.GJ-17-AN-7904
came with full speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed
with the appellant. As a result, the appellant fell down and
sustained serious injuries with fracture. 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.1,75,180/- against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-.
4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal
has committed error in not considering future prospective income
and therefore, ought to have considered the fact that the
appellant was 47 years old, 25% future prospective is required to
be considered. Also, the Tribunal has awarded meager amounts of
Rs.20,000/- and Rs.6,000/- under the head of pain, shock and
suffering and under the head of special diet and attendant charges
respectively. The Tribunal has also not properly assessed the
income of the claimant as she was earning Rs.7,000/- p.m by doing
part time job as Sweeper at Halol Nagarpalika and even
considering the minimum wage prevailing at the time of accident,
he has requested to reassess the income of the appellant. Hence,
he has requested to enhance the compensation amount in the
appeal.
5) Learned Advocate Ms. Rahevar for 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 she has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1835/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
requested to dismissed the appeal.
6) 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 applicant. In
the present case, the accident occurred in November, 2016 and
during that time, as per the Government approved minimum
wages was Rs.7720/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the
income of the appellant as Rs.3500/- per month which is required
to be enhanced and hence, the income of the injured is reassessed
as Rs.7720/- per month.
7) So far as disability is concerned, the appellant has produced a
disability certificate issued at Exh:M-19/10 from which it appears
that the appellant has sustained 42% disability on her right lower
limb. However, both the parties agreed to assess the disability at
18% for the body as a whole by producing mutual consent Pursis
at Exh:29. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
disability to the extent of 18%.
8) In the present case, the accident occurred November, 2016 and
during that time, the appellant - injured was part time sweeper
and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured as
Rs.3500/- per month which is required to be enhanced and hence,
the income of the injured is reassessed as Rs.7720/- per month. As
the Tribunal has considered disability of the injured as 18% and
multiplier of 13 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]
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1835/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
which are just and proper. Now if we reassess the compensation
with reassessed income of the injured Rs.7,720/- p.m income on
adding future prospects income at 25%, then it would come to
Rs.9,650/- p.m. So per annum income comes to Rs.1,15,800/- and
by applying 13 multiplier and deduction of 18 % disability, it comes
to Rs.2,70,972/- (1,15,800/- x 13 multiplier x 18% disability) under
the head of future loss of income.
9) As the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.98,280/- towards future
loss of income, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount
of Rs.1,72,692/- under the head of future loss of income. So far
other conventional heads are concerned, this court deems fit not
to interfere with the same and hence, the same are not disturbed.
10) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation
computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of 98,280/- 2,70,972/-
income
Actual loss of 7,000/- 7,000/-
income
Medical bills 43,900/- 43,900/-
Transportation, 6,000/- 6,000/-
Special diet, and
attendant charges
Mental Pain, shock 20,000/- 20,000/-
and sufferings
Total Rs.1,75,180/- Rs.3,47,872/-
compensation
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.1,75,180/-, however, as discussed above the appellant would
be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,72,692/- with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1835/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2026
undefined
proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
12) Hence, present appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and
award dated 11.08.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux), Panchmahals at Halol, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.3082 of 2017 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.1,72,692/- 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 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
