[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Panchudevi Shantilal Gothi vs Umeshbhai Nathuni Yadav(Driver Of ... on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1033/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1033 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PANCHUDEVI SHANTILAL GOTHI
Versus
UMESHBHAI NATHUNI YADAV(DRIVER OF TRUCK) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 25.10.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary) at Surat in MACP No.716/2004, whereby the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.2,38,274/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1033/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on
24.05.2004, at about 6:15 in the morning, the appellant/claimant was
traveling as a passenger in luxury bus bearing registration no.RJ-07-P-
4247 and when the said bus reached at the place of accident, in the
meantime, the respondent no.1 herein came by driving a truck bearing
registration no.GJ-10-V-5109 in rash and negligent manner, without
blowing any horn and dashed with the bus from the behind. As a result
of the said accident, the claimant/appellant herein sustained grievous
multiple fractures and she was admitted to Shreeji Hospital, Vadodara
and thereafter, admitted at Shree Mahavir General Hospital, Surat as an
indoor patient. It has also been averred in the claim petition that at the
time of accident, the claimant was aged about 36 years and was doing
the cloth business and thereby earning Rs.4,000/- per month.
Therefore, she filed the claim petition for seeking the compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- from the opponents.
3. On being served, the opponent no.3/respondent no.3 herein filed
the written statement at Exh.16, thereby denying the averments made in
the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition, while the
respondent no.6/insurance company filed the written statement at
Exh.23, thereby denying the averments made in the claim petition. It
has been further stated that the driver of the bus was not having a valid
driving license, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.40 for determination:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1033/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
(1) Whether the applicant proves that the applicant sustained
injuries due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of
the vehicle involved?
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation with
interest? If yes, what amount and from whom?
(3) What order and award?
5. Having considered the pleadings, evidence and 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.2,38,274/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization. The learned Tribunal has held the respondent nos.1 to 3
liable to satisfy the award; however, the respondent nos.4 to 6 were
exonerated from their liability to satisfy the award.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the original claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
7. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mitul Shelat for the appellant,
Mr. Rituraj M. Meena for respondent no.3/insurance company and Mr.
Yogi K. Gadhia for respondent no.6/insurance company.
8. At the outset, Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned Senior Counsel appearing
with Ms. Disha N. Nanavaty, learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1033/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
claimant/appellant was aged about 36 years; however, the learned
Tribunal has not considered the future prospective income of the
claimant/appellant. He further submitted that the claimant had sustained
the multiple fracture injuries and she has become permanently disabled.
He further submitted that as per disability certificate, she sustained the
disability of 44% body as a whole. He further submitted that the learned
Tribunal while awarding the compensation under the head of pain,
shock and suffering, special diet, transportation and attendant charges
and actual loss of income, has ignored the fracture injuries sustained by
the claimant. He further submitted that the compensation awarded
under these heads are very meager. In support of his contention,
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant placed the reliance upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Sabeer
@ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, reported in (2023) 20 SCC 774.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company vehemently
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and
award, therefore, the captioned appeal deserves to be rejected.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.6/insurance company vehemently
submitted that the learned Tribunal has exonerated the respondent no.6
from satisfying the award, therefore, the captioned appeal against the
respondent no.6 deserves to be rejected.
11. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1033/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
there is no dispute in regard to the occurrence of accident, manner of
occurrence of accident, age and occupation of the appellant. The
appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground of
quantum awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12. It is pleaded by the claimant before the learned Tribunal that at
the time of accident, the claimant/appellant was aged about 36 years
and she was engaged in the business of cloth selling and thereby,
earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The claimant has also filed the affidavit at
Exh.45 along with the line of the pleadings in the claim petition. It is not
in dispute that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 36
years and was engaged in the business of cloth selling. The learned
Tribunal has determined the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per
month as the income was not proved by leading cogent evidence. In
absence of any proof of income, in my considered view, the learned
Tribunal could have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the
time of accident. The minimum wages as notified by the State
Government prevalent at the relevant point of time was Rs.2,300/-,
therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the
claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month. Perusal of the impugned judgment
further transpires that though the claimant/appellant was aged about 36
years but, the learned Tribunal has not considered the prospective
income of the claimant. Thus, considering the principle of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, 40%
of the notional income is required to be added on account of future
prospective income of the claimant. Thus, after adding 40% of the
notional monthly income, the monthly income would come to Rs.4,200/-
i.e. (3,000+3,000X40%).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1033/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
13. The disability certificate at page 141 of the paper book transpires
that the claimant has sustained the partial permanent disability of 44%.
It is evident from the record that the said disability certificate was not
proved on record by summoning the doctor, who issued the said
certificate; however, the parties have filed the consent pursis at Exh.49,
thereby consenting to consider the disability of 22% body as a whole.
The learned Tribunal has considered the functional disability of 22% in
view of the consent pursis at Exh.49. Perusal of the medical papers as
well as supporting affidavit at Exh.48 of the claimant transpires that the
claimant has sustained the multiple fractures i.e. the fracture of pelvic
bones, fracture of femurs and fracture of tibia fibula. The medical
papers further transpires that the claimant took the treatment from The
Rainbow Hospital, Anand Hospital, clinic of Dr. Unnati Mehta and Shree
Mahavir General Hospital, Surat. The record further transpires that she
remained hospitalized for a period of 43 days as an indoor patient and
thereafter, she received the treatment as an outdoor patient.
Considering the nature of work of the claimant at the time of accident
and having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, I
am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has considered the
functional disability of the claimant at lower side. Therefore, in my
considered view, the functional disability would not be less than 30%.
Thus, considering the functional disability at 30% and applying the
multiplier of 15 as per age of the claimant/appellant, the future loss of
income would come to Rs.2,26,800/- i.e. (4200X30%X12X15).
14. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the
head of mental pain, shock and suffering. Considering the multiple
fractures sustained by the claimant and having regard to the period of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1033/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
hospitalization of the claimant as an indoor patient and the surgeries
underwent by the claimant, the compensation awarded under this head,
in my considered view, is at very lower side. Therefore, the same is
enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- from Rs.5,000/-. The learned Tribunal has
awarded a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of special diet,
a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of attendant charges and
Rs.5,000/- under the head of transportation. Considering the nature of
injuries and period of hospitalization, the compensation awarded under
these heads is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.9,000/- under the head of actual loss of income. It is on
record that the claimant remained hospitalized for a period of 43 days
as an indoor patient and thereafter, she was treated as an outdoor
patient. Thus, the actual loss of income is awarded for a period of four
months, i.e. Rs.12,000/- (3,000X4). The learned Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.90,474/- under the head of medical expenses. The learned
Tribunal after considering the bills for medical expenses, has awarded
the said amount, therefore, the compensation awarded under this head
is not required to be interfered with and the same is upheld. Hence
accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant
shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation under the
following heads:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Future loss of income 2,26,800/-
2. Mental pain, shock, and suffering 1,00,000/-
3. Special diet, attendant charges, and 1,00,000/-
transportation
4. Medical expenses 90,474/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1033/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
5. actual loss of income 12,000/-
Total 5,29,274/-
15. The claimant/appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of
Rs.5,29,274/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.
2,38,274/-, therefore, the claimant/appellant shall be entitled for
additional compensation of Rs.2,91,000/- i.e. (5,29,274-2,38,274). The
learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum,
therefore, the claimant/appellant shall be entitled for the same rate of
interest on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing
of claim petition till its realization.
16. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal
stands allowed partly. The respondent no.3/insurance company shall
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest within
a period of six weeks from today.
17. Upon depositing of the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall
disburse the said amount to the original claimants, after deducting
deficit of court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any, lying
deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted
to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. No order as to costs.
18. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
