[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Keshavbhai Kurjibhai Vora vs Prakashbhai Natwarlal Teraiya on 9 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 406 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KESHAVBHAI KURJIBHAI VORA
Versus
PRAKASHBHAI NATWARLAL TERAIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. MASUMI NANAVATY FOR MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the
Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 09/03/2026
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate for the appellant-
original claimant and learned advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavaty
appearing for Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the
respondent no.3-Insurance Company. The rule of admission issued by
this Court in the captioned appeal, is reported to have been duly
served upon the respondent nos.1 and 2; however, no appearance has
been entered on their behalf.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
[2.] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of
1988"), at the instance of the original claimant, being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 20.10.2014 and the
consequential decree dated 11.11.2014 (hereinafter referred as "the
impugned judgment and award") passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Auxi) at Gondal in M.A.C.P. No.114 of 2006. The
Tribunal has thus, partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the
claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding him entitled to
seek recovery of sum of Rs.10,01,618/- from original opponents nos.1
to 3, jointly and severally, with 9% interest from the date of filing of
the claim petition, till its actual realization. The Tribunal has thereby
not entertained the entire claim of Rs. 20 Lakhs with 18% interest as
prayed for by the claimant. Hence, the captioned appeal seeking
enhancement of amount of compensation under various heads.
[3.] Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate for the appellant,
has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on
the issue of contributory negligence determined by the Tribunal to
the extent of 10% attributed towards the claimant as well as on the
quantum of compensation being determined on lower side.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
[3.1] It is submitted that the learned Judge without there
being any evidence of contributory negligence, has held the claimant
10% negligent, which has consequently led to the reduction of the
amount of compensation determined. It is submitted that despite the
claimant having established that the charge-sheet was filed solely
against the driver of the Innova car and the driver of the car having
not entered the witness box, the Tribunal ought to have drawn
adverse inference against the driver of the car as solely negligent.
[3.2] Secondly, on the aspect of quantum of compensation,
learned advocate has submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate
the cogent material in the nature of Village Form No.8A and 7/12
abstract being produced on record from Exh.36 to Exh.41, to consider
the additional income of the claimant from the agricultural source. To
re-appreciate the future loss of income, it was pleaded that prior to
the accident, the claimant was engaged as a Supervisor in the Mill, run
by partnership firm and used to earn monthly salary of Rs. 4,500/-.
The said fact has been proved by the claimant by leading evidence in
the nature of salary certificate at Exh.53 as well as the extract of
ledger account reflecting the expense towards the salary of the
claimant at Exh.54 and Exh.55. Considering the aforesaid evidence on
record, in light of the evidence of the claimant, who has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
examined at Exh.45, though the Tribunal has accepted the case of the
claimant of earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of the accident;
however, has failed to apply the same principles while considering the
additional income earned from agricultural resources by recording
that no corroborative material has been brought on record, indicating
any proof of income in this regard. According to the learned advocate,
the Tribunal has confined the agricultural income to the tune of
Rs.450/- per month ignoring the fact that the claimant was joint holder
of an agricultural land, which was around 3.5 Bighas. It is further
pointed out from the revenue record that seasonal crop was taken
from the land jointly owned by the claimant. Considering the aforesaid
material on record, which has remained uncontroverted, he has
submitted that this Court may consider the additional income from
the agricultural resources to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month.
[3.3] It is further submitted that because of the injuries in the
nature of amputation of the leg below ankle, the claimant was unable
to attend the agricultural activities and has to incur the supervisory
expenses by engaging the labourers. The reliance was placed on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur reported in (2003) 7 SCC 484. It is further
pointed out that even while considering the meager income of Rs.
450/- per month towards agricultural income, the Tribunal has failed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
to consider the prospective income, in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the
Tribunal ought to have considered future prospective income at the
rate of 30%. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged this Court to
enhance the amount of compensation under the head of future loss of
income as well as under the head of actual loss of income, as against
the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
[3.4] The learned advocate has further sought enhancement of
the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock, and
suffering by contending that, considering the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant and the extended period of hospitalization
as is evident from the medical case papers produced on record
namely, the CT scan report at Exh.26, the injury certificate issued by
Madhuram Hospital at Exh. 27, the injury certificate issued by Dr.
Hemang Vasavada at Exh.28, the discharge card of Madhuram Hospital
at Exhs.29 and 30, the injury certificate issued by Dr. Bhaumik Bhimana
at Exh.31, the medical case papers at Exh.32, the injury certificate of
Dr. Bhaumik Bhimana at Exh.33 as well as the medical prescriptions
produced on record collectively at Exh. 42 and the disability
certificates issued by the respective medical experts at Exhs. 48, 50,
and 51, it can be inferred that the claimant has undergone multiple
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
operations and surgeries and was confined to the bed for almost a
period of one year. In fact, considering the fact that the claimant has
suffered amputation below the ankle, the claimant has sustained
lifelong disability.
[3.5] Referring to the unreported decision of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdishbhai Khimabhai Jambucha
vs. Panchabhai Ghughabhai Bhil & Ors., oral judgment dated
16.09.2025 passed in R/First Appeal No. 2690 of 2020, the learned
advocate has pointed out that, in case of the disability of lower limb,
determined as 62% by the doctor, which was considered as 32% of the
body as a whole, this Court, while considering the nature of the
engagement of the claimant of earning by doing masonry work, has
treated it as a case of 100% functional disability and has appropriately
enhanced the amount of compensation. Learned advocate has
submitted that considering the fact that, in the case on hand, the
claimant has suffered amputation of the left leg below the ankle, and
the evidence of the claimant, wherein it has clearly transpired that
after the occurrence of the accident, he is confined to his home and is
unable to attend the job as a Supervisor, this Court may consider it as
a case of at least 90% functional disability.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
[3.6] Learned advocate has further placed reliance upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jakir Hussein vs.
Sabir and Others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 252, as well as in the case
of Mohd. Sabeer Alias Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2023) 20 SCC 774.
Referring to the aforesaid decisions, the learned advocate has
submitted that apart from pain, shock and suffering, this Court may
also consider the enhancement of the amount of compensation under
the heads of loss of amenities of life, transportation, attendant and
special diet expenses, cost of the artificial limb and its maintenance as
well as future medical expenses.
[3.7] Referring to the medical case papers and the aforesaid
judgments, the learned advocate has urged this Court to award the
amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head
of pain, shock, and suffering, Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head of loss of
amenities, Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head of expenses to be incurred
towards prosthetic leg, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the attendant charges,
and amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the future medical expenses.
[3.8] At this stage, the learned advocate has invited my
attention to the fact that it had transpired in the evidence of the
Medical Officer, who has been examined as a witness, that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
claimant would be required to incur expenses of Rs. 3,000/- towards
future medical treatment. It is further submitted that considering the
fact that the claimant was aged 41 years at the time of the accident,
which had taken place way back in the year 2005, and having survived
for almost 20 years as on date, an appropriate amount may be
considered under the head of future medical expenses. The learned
advocate has, therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal by modifying
the impugned judgment and award.
[3.9] In support of his submissions, the learned advocate has
placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation
Ltd., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601. Inviting my attention to
the facts of the case, the learned advocate has submitted that, having
noted the multiple fractures sustained by the claimant, the Supreme
Court has considered awarding an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the
head of pain, shock, and suffering as well as amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-
towards the loss of comfort, amenities and mental agony. It is also
submitted that the addition of 50% was considered towards future
prospects.
[4.] Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavaty
appearing for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, has forcefully
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
argued that the Tribunal has determined just compensation in the
facts of the case and the evidence brought on record, which calls for
no interference in the captioned appeal. She has mainly relied upon
the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, while determining
the income of the claimant as Rs. 6,300/- per month. She has
submitted that considering the evidence brought on record, the
monthly income of the claimant of Rs. 4,500/- as determined by the
Tribunal, has not been challenged by the Insurance Company;
however, as regards the claim of additional income from agricultural
resources is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly not entertained such
claim, in absence of any further documentary evidence being brought
on record, as regards the proof of such income.
[4.1] Learned advocate has further invited my attention to the
fact that though the Tribunal has considered the prospective income
at the rate of 30% of the established income; however, considering
the fact that the claimant was aged 41 years and was self-employed, in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), at the most, 25% future rise towards the
established income would have been considered, while determining
the future loss of income. She has further submitted that considering
the nature of injuries sustained and the medical case papers produced
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
on record, as well as the evidence of the medical expert, the Tribunal
has rightly not considered the functional disability, in the facts of the
case.
[4.2] The attention of this Court is invited to the cross-
examination of the claimant, wherein he has clearly admitted the fact
that, though he is confined to his home, he is receiving the income in
the form of share in the profit of the partnership firm. She has further
invited my attention to the fact that the claimant has fairly conceded
that the agricultural lands still remains in his holding. She has,
therefore, submitted that at the most, 25% prospective rise can be
considered by clubbing the income received from the salary i.e. Rs.
4,500/- and Rs. 450/- from the agricultural resources, which comes to
Rs. 4,950/-. Considering the disability sustained to the tune of 62% of
the body as a whole, the prospective rise in the income of the claimant
can be considered as Rs. 1,237.50/- on the established income of Rs.
4,950/-.
[4.3] She has further submitted that the case of Jasbir Kaur
(supra) can be distinguished on the facts, inasmuch as, it was a fatal
accident case, and therefore, in absence of the deceased, the family
had to incur supervisory expense towards the maintenance of the
agricultural field; whereas in the present case, it can be gathered from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
the evidence of the claimant that even prior to the occurrence of the
accident, the claimant himself was not undertaking the agricultural
activity, but used to supervise the agricultural fields. She has further
submitted that as regards the functional disability is concerned,
considering the evidence of the medical expert, who has opined that
the claimant can sit and attend his job, and looking to the nature of
the work of the claimant, who has clearly conceded in his cross-
examination of receiving the amount of Rs. 1,000/- every month
towards the profit earned by the firm, this Court may not interfere
with the disability assessed by the Tribunal. According to her, the
multiplier of 14 has rightly been considered by the Tribunal.
[4.4] She has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate Versus
Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav reported in 2021 (16) SCC 467, and has
submitted that even in absence of any appeal or cross-objection being
filed by the respondent-Insurance Company, this Court, while
considering the awarding of "just compensation", can definitely
consider the issue of future rise of income, to be applied by
considering the well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) for the purpose of evaluation
of "just compensation". The reference was also made to the provisions
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in this
regard.
[4.5] She has further submitted that the actual loss of income
has rightly been determined in the facts of the case; however, she has
fairly pointed out that if the case of the claimant is to be believed to
have been confined to his home for a period of one year after the
occurrence of the accident, instead of nine months, the actual loss of
income may be considered for 12 months.
[4.6] As regards the amount of compensation sought for under
the heads of pain, shock, and suffering, transportation, attendant and
special diet expenses, loss of amenities of life, the expenses for the
artificial limb, and the future medical expenses are concerned, the
learned advocate has fairly submitted before this Court to pass
appropriate orders, in the facts of the case and the evidence on record
as well as in light of the aforesaid judgments, which have been relied
upon by the learned advocate for the appellant.
[5.] I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and have also considered their submissions, in light
of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal. I have also
closely perused the evidence brought on record and have gone
through the judgments relied upon, during the course of hearing. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
only limited question, which arises for consideration of this Court in
the present appeal is, as to whether the Tribunal committed any error
in determining the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.
10,01,618/- with 9% interest, in the facts of the case and the evidence
brought on record, in a claim petition preferred under Section 166 of
the Act of 1988?
[6.] At the outset, it would be appropriate to note that in
absence of any appeal being filed by the respondent-Insurance
Company, the issue of involvement of the vehicle and the liability
incurred by the respondent-Insurance Company to indemnify the
owner of the offending vehicle and consequently to pay the amount
of compensation, has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. It is
not in dispute that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries in the
nature of amputation of the left knee below the ankle, due to the
motor vehicle accident caused due to negligence of respondent no.1.
Apart from the amputation of the left leg below the ankle, the
claimant has also sustained fracture of the left femur bone as well as
fracture of the clavicle and scapula. The crush injury to the left foot at
the ankle level has not only resulted in dislocation of the ankle joint
and loss of soft tissues, but has ultimately resulted in amputation of
the left leg below the ankle. Because of the aforesaid injuries
sustained by the claimant, as evident from the medical case papers
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
produced on record, the claimant had to undergo operation, for which,
he was hospitalized on two occasions for a considerable period. The
claimant had also undergone plastic surgery. The disability certificate
produced on record at Exh. 48 indicates that when the claimant was
examined by the orthopedic surgeon on 24.03.2014, on his clinical
assessment, it was found that there was serious discharge from the
stump wound. The movements of the leg were restricted. The muscle
power of the leg was substantially affected. There was wasting of the
muscles of a great nature noticed in the left thigh, gluteal and calf
region of the left leg. Even the muscles of the left shoulder and arm
were weakened. Restriction in movement of the left shoulder was also
noticed. On overall examination of the claimant, the Medical Officer
had noted that he was unable to walk without an artificial limb or
without crutches. There was limping and painful walking. He was
unable to climb the stairs without support or walk on uneven surfaces.
There was difficulty in squatting and sitting cross-legged. Neuroma
pain was also found at the stump site. Noticing the aforesaid features,
the doctor had opined that in future he would not be able to perform
hard work or do manual labour work. It was mentioned that the stump
site has caused more difficulty in his routine work. The loosening of
the stump prosthesis has repeatedly caused chafing and ulceration,
for which he requires repeated change of prosthesis.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
[7.] Considering the overall assessment as per Cashler's
combining formula, the doctor had opined that he had sustained
partial disability of the left lower extremity to the extent of 65% and
the left upper extremity to about 24%. From the record, it transpires
that the said Medical Officer has been examined as a medical expert
by the claimant at Exh.49. In his evidence, he has specifically stated
that, because of the fissure at the stump site, there is repeated
discharge, for which, in his cross-examination, he had stated that the
claimant would be required to incur future medical expenses at the
rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Apart from the aforesaid expense, he
has also expressed that the claimant may also require to incur expense
towards the artificial limb, which may cost him between Rs.15,000/- to
Rs.1,50,000/-. According to him, the claimant may require to replace
such prosthesis every two years.
[8.] Considering the aforesaid evidence of the doctor, as
against the findings and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, this
Court is required to re-look into the disability assessed by the Tribunal
as 62% of the body as a whole. The learned advocate has emphasized
on the cross-examination of the claimant, wherein, he has deposed
that initially the amount of Rs. 4,500/- was paid as salary towards his
services as a Supervisor in the mill; however, because of the accidental
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
injuries, having been confined to his home, he is receiving an amount
of Rs. 1,000/- towards the share in the profit of the partnership firm.
[9.] I have closely considered the evidence of the claimant, in
light of the medical case papers, more particularly, the disability
certificate. The Tribunal has considered the amount of Rs. 4,500/-
considering the corroborative material being brought on record in the
nature of the extract of the ledger account of the partnership firm as
well as the partnership deed. The said amount so determined by the
Tribunal, has not been challenged by the respondent-Insurance
Company; however, the aforesaid part of the evidence has been relied
upon for the purpose of reconsidering the percentage of disability.
This Court cannot ignore the fact that at the initial stage, the case put
forward by the claimant was of earning the income by extending his
services as a Supervisor in a Mill run by the partnership firm, of which,
he claims to be a partner, as evident from the partnership deed
produced on record, and of receiving the amount by way of share in
the profit of the said partnership firm. It has also further transpired in
the evidence of the claimant that the Mill was though run by the
partnership firm, it consists of partners from the family of the
claimant. Thus, it can be inferred that the partnership firm was a
family business.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
[10.] Having noted the aforesaid evidence on record and
considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr reported in (2011) 1 SCC
343, the Courts are under obligation to assess the damages
objectively so as to make good the loss suffered as a result of the
wrong done as far as money can do in a fair, reasonable and equitable
manner. The very fact that the claimant, though confined to his home,
was however receiving the amount from the profit earned by the firm,
it cannot be said that because of the accident, the future earning of
the claimant was affected to the extent of 100%. Considering the
nature of injuries sustained and the evidence of the Medical Officer,
the Tribunal has rightly ascertained the disability of the claimant to
the extent of 62% of the body as a whole.
[11.] Having held so, as regards the income of the claimant is
concerned, though the claimant has produced various documents in
the form of revenue record, the only relevant document, which can be
taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of such
income is the copy of Village Form No. 8A produced on record at
Exh.36 and the 7/12 extract of the said land at Exh.37. On bare
appreciation of the aforesaid revenue record, it clearly transpires that
the claimant was holding the aforesaid parcel of land jointly. It is also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
evident from the deposition of the claimant that prior to the accident,
he used to supervise the agricultural activity. In such circumstances,
the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant in
the case of Jasbir Kaur (supra), in the facts of the case, seeking loss of
income arising from supervisory expenses is concerned, is misplaced.
However, considering the fact that one seasonal crop was taken from
the said field, which was otherwise jointly owned by the claimant, no
error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in considering
the additional income of Rs. 450/- from agricultural resources.
[12.] Having noted so, as regards the prospective rise of the
income is concerned, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), considering the case of the claimant
in the category of self-employed or on a fix salary is concerned and
noticing the age of the claimant as 41 years (as rightly determined by
the Tribunal on appreciating the driving license of the claimant), this
Court is inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned
advocate for the respondent- Insurance Company, considering the
sole object of "just compensation". Hence, the addition of future rise
to the extent of 25% on the established income of the claimant, is
required to be considered for the purpose of future loss of income. On
clubbing the income from two different sources i.e. Rs. 4,500/- as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
salary derived from the partnership firm and Rs. 450/- from the
agricultural resources, the established monthly income of the claimant
is considered as Rs. 4,950/-. Thus, the future rise of income of the
claimant is considered at the rate of 25%, which comes to Rs.
1,237.50/-. By considering the aforesaid components, the future loss
of income, is thus determined as Rs.6,44,448/- [Rs. 6,187.50 (Rs.
4,950/- + Rs. 1,237.50) × 62% (physical disability) = Rs. 3,836/-; Rs.
3,836/- × 12 × 14 (multiplier)].
[13.] This brings me to the second limb of arguments of the
learned advocate for the appellant, as regards the amount of
compensation awarded under the rest of the heads i.e. pain, shock,
and suffering, expenses towards transportation, attendant charges,
and special diet, medical expenses, loss of amenities, artificial limb and
future medical expenses, are concerned. It is an undisputed fact that
the claimant has suffered amputation of the left leg below the knee.
The medical case papers thus support the case of the claimant of
having undergone multiple operations, including surgery and
extended hospitalization. The prescriptions produced on record
suggest the medical expenses incurred by the claimant.
[14.] Considering the aforesaid comprehensive material placed
on record, it cannot be ignored that apart from the physical pain
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
undergone, the claimant has also undergone mental agony. Bearing in
mind, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various
decisions referred to and relied upon by the appellant, this Court is
inclined to accept the case of the claimant of enhancing the amount of
compensation under the heads of pain, shock, and suffering,
attendant charges, loss of amenities, artificial limb, and the future
medical expenses, are concerned. In absence of any dispute being
raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
against the amount of compensation awarded under the heads of
medical expenses and actual loss of income is concerned, the same are
hereby confirmed.
[15.] Having held so, as regards issue of contributory
negligence of 10% as challenged by the appellant-claimant, which has
not been disputed by the respondent-Insurance Company, considering
the evidence on record, the Tribunal committed error in holding the
claimant of having contributed to the occurrence of accident. The
impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal holding the claimant
negligent to the extent of 10% is hereby quashed and set aside. It is
further held that the driver of the insured vehicle was solely negligent
towards accident.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
[16.] For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award is
hereby re-appreciated and re-determined. The same is reproduced in
tabular form hereunder:
Under the Head of Compensation Compensation
Awarded by the Awarded by this
Tribunal in Rs. Court in Rs.
Loss of future income 6,56,208/- 6,44,448/-
Pain, shock and suffering 60,000/- 1,50,000/-
Attendant Charges 30,000/- 1,30,000/-
Medical Expenses 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
Actual Loss 56,700/- 56,700/-
Loss of Amenities 50,000/- 1,50,000/-
Artificial Limb 40,000/- 1,50,000/-
Future Medical Expense 20,000/- 50,000/-
Total 11,12,908/- 15,31,148/-
After deducting 10% 10,01,618/-
(Rs.1,11,290/-) negligence
of the claimant, less ---
awarded amount of
compensation
Enhanced Amount 5,29,530/-
(Rs.15,31,148-10,01,618)
Interest 9%
[17.] For the foregoing reasons, the First Appeal is partly
allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 20.10.2014 and
the consequential decree dated 11.11.2014 passed by learned Motor
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) at Gondal in M.A.C.P. No.114 of 2006 is
hereby modified by holding the original claimant entitled to seek
recovery of sum of Rs. 15,31,148/- with interest at the rate of 9% from
the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization, to be realized
from the original opponents jointly and severally. Since it has been
reported that the amount of Rs. 10,01,618/- as awarded by the
Tribunal has already been realized by the claimant, in absence of any
appeal being filed by the respondent- Insurance Company, the
respondent no.3 - Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit
the difference of the amount of Rs. 5,29,530/- with interest at the
rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual
realization within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt
of the certified copy of this order. Upon deposit of the aforesaid
amount of compensation, the Tribunal is directed to release 70% of
the awarded amount in favour of the original claimant, subject to due
verification. Let the remaining 30% of the awarded amount be
invested in the non-cumulative fixed deposit with a nationalized bank
for a period of three years. Needless to clarify that, on expiry of the
said period, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders
for release and disbursement in favour of the claimant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/406/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
[18.] With these observations, the First Appeal stands disposed
of in the aforesaid terms. Record and proceedings are directed to be
sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with the Writ of
this judgment.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
