BAKABHAI FATESINH SOLANKIversusSHABBIR NATHUBHAI SHAIKH

     C/FA/4727/2023                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4727 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No

==========================================================
                        BAKABHAI FATESINH SOLANKI
                                  Versus
                      SHABBIR NATHUBHAI SHAIKH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 30/01/2026
                              ORAL JUDGMENT


1      This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and award dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Kheda in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.108 of 2022.


2.     Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3.     The brief facts of the present appeal are that on
20.04.2017, the appellant was travelling in a rickshaw bearing
Registration No.GJ-07-VW-8579, owned by respondent No.3.
When the rickshaw reached Kapadwanj–Antarsumba Road near
Jaloya      Patiya,    respondent     No.1,       driving   a    truck     bearing
Registration No.GJ-05-AU-6111, owned by respondent No.2, at
an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the rickshaw, causing it to overturn. It is submitted that


                                    Page 1 of 6
     C/FA/4727/2023                         JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




due to the said collision, the appellant sustained serious injuries
and suffered permanent disability. Consequently, the appellant
filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Kheda at Kapadwanj, claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-
from the present respondents.


4.     Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
learned Tribunal committed an error in not considering the
future prospective income of the appellant. It was contended that
the appellant was aged 49 years and, therefore, as per the
settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Hon’ble High Court, an addition of 25% towards future prospects
ought to have been made while computing the income and
compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It was
further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding
actual loss only to the extent of Rs.10,000/-, whereas the same
ought to have been assessed for a period of 12 months. The
learned advocate also submitted that the learned Tribunal
committed an error in awarding only Rs.5,000/- under the head
of pain, shock, and suffering, despite the appellant having
sustained serious fracture injuries and having undergone
prolonged indoor as well as outdoor treatment. According to the
appellant, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- ought to have been
awarded under the said head. It was further submitted that the
learned Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- towards
special diet, transportation, and attendant charges, whereas an
amount of Rs.50,000/- ought to have been granted. Lastly, it
was contended that the learned Tribunal committed an error in
not awarding any amount towards loss of amenities. It was


                             Page 2 of 6
     C/FA/4727/2023                             JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




submitted that due to the injuries, the appellant would not be
able to lead a normal life and would have to face daily frustration
and loss         of   enjoyment of   life; therefore,   an    amount         of
Rs.1,00,000/- ought to have been awarded under the said head.
Therefore, the present appeal may be allowed.

5.     On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the
respondents has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that
the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper
compensation in view of the evidence available on record.
Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award passed
by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after
taking into consideration the entire material on record and,
hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court
and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.


6.     Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and perused the record, it appears that the issues of
liability and negligence are not in dispute; hence, the appeal is
required to be decided within a narrow compass. While rendering
the judgment, the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the
rickshaw to be 20% negligent, whereas the driver of the truck
was held to be 80% negligent, which finding has not been
challenged by either of the parties.



7.     So far as the quantum is concerned, in the absence of any
documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal considered the
monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/-, as the claimant


                                 Page 3 of 6
     C/FA/4727/2023                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




was working as a mason. However, as the accident occurred in
the year 2017, this Court is of the considered view that, having
regard to the prevailing minimum wages at the relevant time, the
monthly income ought to have been taken at Rs.8,400/-. Upon
considering the monthly income at Rs.8,400/-, the annual
income would come to Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.8,400 × 12). Therefore,
to the aforesaid extent, the learned Tribunal has committed an
error.


8.       As the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration
future      prospects    and   the     claimant     has      sustained       64%
permanent disability, which is not disputed between the parties,
in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported
in (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addition of 25% is required to be
made towards future prospects, as the claimant was doing as a
mason work. After adding 25% towards future prospects, the
annual income would come to Rs.1,26,000/-. Considering the
age of the claimant to be 49 years at the time of the accident, as
per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma
v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a
multiplier of 13 is required to be applied. Accordingly, the total
loss of income would come to Rs.16,38,000/- (Rs.1,26,000 × 13).


9.       As the learned Tribunal has assessed the functional
disability to the extent of 64% of the body as a whole, the loss of
future      earning     capacity   would         come   to   Rs.10,48,320/-
(Rs.16,38,000 × 64%).



                                   Page 4 of 6
      C/FA/4727/2023                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




10.     Under the head of medical expenses, the learned Tribunal
has awarded Rs.2,77,003/-, which appears to be just and
proper. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by
the claimant, the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock
and suffering is required to be enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.50,000/-.           The    amount     awarded       towards      special      diet,
transportation and attendant charges is also required to be
enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal has
awarded two months’ income towards actual loss of income,
which, after reassessment at Rs.8,400/- per month, would come
to Rs.16,800/-.


11.     After recalculating the compensation under the various
heads, the claimant shall be entitled to the following:

  Sr. No.                    Nature of heads                      Amount
1               Future loss of income                    Rs.10,48,320/-
2               Medical Expenses                         Rs.2,77,003/-
3               Special diet, Attendant              and Rs.20,000/-
                Transportation
4               Actual loss of income                    Rs.16,800/-
5               Pain shock and suffering                 Rs.50,000/-
                Total                                    Rs.14,12,123/-


12.     For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is
partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by
the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is
enhanced from Rs.7,96,203/- to Rs.14,12,123/-. The claimant
shall, therefore, be entitled to an additional compensation of



                                       Page 5 of 6
      C/FA/4727/2023                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026




Rs.6,15,920/- with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal,
to be deposited 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 learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the
deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse
the amount accordingly.


14.     Award to be drawn accordingly.


                                                                  (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/02/2026 11:32:15




                                             Page 6 of 6