High Court of Gujarat
SACHIN KANTILAL BHAYANIversusMANISHBHA RAYDEBHA KER
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant’s future loss of income and other heads of compensation and accordingly enhanced the award by Rs 11,64,400, including a 40% addition for future prospect, higher amounts for pain and suffering, special diet and attendant, and interest on future medical expenses.
Summary
The appellant, a Home Guard who suffered paraplegia after being struck by a car on 15‑08‑2019, appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal had partially awarded compensation based on an income of Rs 8,000 per month, a multiplier of 16, and modest sums for pain, suffering, and attendant charges. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider a 40% addition for future prospect, undervalued pain and suffering, and did not award interest on future medical expenses. The High Court examined the evidence, accepted the claimant’s disability certificate and income evidence, and held that the Tribunal erred in the quantum of award. It enhanced the compensation by Rs 11,64,400, adding 40% to future loss of income, increasing pain‑and‑suffering to Rs 3,50,000, special diet and attendant to Rs 5,00,000, and ordered interest on future medical expenses. The appeal was therefore partly allowed, modifying the Tribunal’s award accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the claimant’s monthly income for loss of future earnings
- Whether a 40% addition for future prospect of income is warranted
- Whether the amounts awarded for pain, shock, suffering and loss of amenities are adequate
- Whether the special diet and attendant charges should be increased
- Whether interest can be awarded on future medical expenses
- Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier and other quantum principles
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident ClaimCompensationPermanent DisabilityFuture Loss of IncomePain and SufferingInterest on Medical ExpensesSection 173Motor Vehicles ActTribunalAppeal
Judgment
C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2124 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
SACHIN KANTILAL BHAYANI
Versus
MANISHBHA RAYDEBHA KER & ANR.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SABINA M MANSURI(3631) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 05.01.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar (which shall hereinafter be referred to as
"the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.283
of 2019, the appellant – original claimant has preferred the present
appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which
shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
Page 1 of 9
C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
2) Heard Mr. M. I. Mansuri, learned Advocate for the appellant –
original Claimant and Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty, learned Advocate
for the respondent no.2 – Insurance Company. The respondent
no.1 was duly served but did not appear before this Court. Perused
the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellant – original claimant that on
15.08.2019, the claimant was returning home on his bicycle after
completion of his duty. In the meantime, when he reached near
Satyam Talkies, Mithapur, the car bearing Reg. No.GJ-12-CP-1616
came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, took in
its sweep the claimant and his bicycle, and run wheel of the car
over waist of the applicant. Therefore, the appellant had filed MAC
Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after
appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal
has partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the appellant and ought
to have considered as per the minimum wages of prevalent time
and also erred in not awarding addition towards future prospect. He
has further submitted that the appellant was serving in Home
Guard Department and due to paraplegia he is not able to work and
at present is bedridden though the learned Tribunal has not
properly awarded the compensation and meagre amount is
Page 2 of 9
C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
awarded towards non pecuniary loss. Hence, he has requested to
allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 – Insurance Company
has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned
Tribunal has properly awarded the compensation to the appellant.
She has further submitted that the appellant was doing job as
Homeguard and passbook is produced wherein Rs.8,208/- is
transferred towards salary and hence once the salary is transferred
question does not arise to consider more income than pleading or
evidence on record. Further no evidence of future medical expenses
and it is not permissible the amount is required to be pay or
payable in the future on such amount even in case of enhancement
interest is not permissible and interest is also not payable in
respect of future medical expenditure, hence, she has requested
not to allow interest on the aforesaid amount of future medical
expenses and requested to dismiss the present appeal. She has
relied on the judgment in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s
Pest Control Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1995 SCC (1) 551.
6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and
going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has
considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in
the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC
2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in
2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on
preponderance of probabilities. The claimant has tendered the
Page 3 of 9
C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief at Exhibit 20, wherein, all
the facts of the petition have been narrated and relied on the FIR at
Exhibit 24, panchnama at Exhibit 25, charge-sheet at Exhibit 26,
MLC at Exhibits 29 and 30, Injury Certificate at Exhibit 32,
Disability Certificate at Exhibit 41. The complaint, charge-sheet and
panchnama also corroborate the version of the appellant / claimant.
The respondent no.2 has not examined driver or owner of the car
nor produced any documentary or oral evidence to rebut the
evidence of the claimant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has
drawn adverse inference against the driver of the car and held sole
negligent for causing the accident. The factum of accident,
negligence and liability are not seriously disputed and only quantum
part is challenged under this appeal.
7) Now coming to the quantum part, a perusal of record reveals that
the appellant has pleaded his income as Rs.8,000/- per month by
serving as a Home Guard but has not produced any appointment
letter or salary slip issued by the Home Guard Unit even no witness
has been examined from the Home Guard Unit. However, a perusal
of copy of passbook at Exhibit 46, reveals that the appellant was
receiving monthly amount in the range of Rs.6,996/- to Rs.8.208/-
in his bank account and therefore the learned Tribunal has rightly
considered the income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month.
It appears that the learned Tribunal has observed the age of
claimant as 34 years at the time of accident and the learned
Page 4 of 9
C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
Tribunal has committed error in not considering future prospect,
however, this Court is of the view that 40% addition towards
future prospectus is required to be awarded.
8) It is undisputed fact that to prove disablement of the claimant he
has produced Disability Certificate at Exhibit 41 issued by Dr. M. M.
Oza, wherein, he has assessed whole body permanent disability of
100% and the said certificate was admitted in the evidence by the
other side. Further, the learned Tribunal has relied on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay
Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, and considering
the nature of work of the appellant and going through the medical
records which reveals that the appellant has suffered paraplegia, as
a result of which his lower body is totally paralyzed, the learned
Tribunal has considered that the appellant would naturally have
been prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities
and functions and would have affected his earning capacity and
assessed 100% permanent disability of the appellant which is
just and proper and does not require interference of this Court.
9) Further, considering the age of claimant as 34 years at the time of
accident the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 16, which as per
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma
& Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC
121] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, is just and proper and no interference
Page 5 of 9
C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
of this Court is required. Further, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.40,240/- towards transportation and Rs.3,77,800/- towards
medical expenses are just and proper.
10) Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,200/- which comes to
Rs.11,200/-. Now total income under the head of loss of future
income is required to be considered as Rs.11,200/- x 12 x 16 x
100% / 100 = Rs.21,50,400/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled
to get additional amount of Rs.6,14,400/- towards future loss of
income. Similarly, considering the nature of injuries, period of
treatment and recovery, younger age and disablement of the
claimant, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has
committed error while awarding amount towards pain, shock and
suffering and loss of amenities as Rs.2,00,000/- which is required
to be enhanced to Rs.3,50,000/- i.e. additional amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and loss of
amenities, in view of the ratio laid down in the cases of
K.S.Murlidhara Vs. R. Subbulakshmi, reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3385 and Reshma Vs. Dajiba Krishna Lad and Anr.,
reported in 2025 INSC 1320.
Further, considering the 100% disability of the injured and
requirement of permanent attendant for the injured the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced
in view of Reshma (supra) to Rs.5,00,000/- (i.e. additional
Page 6 of 9
C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards special diet and attendant
charges.)
11) Learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 – Insurance Company
has argued that no interest can be awarded for future medical
expenditure. The said argument is not acceptable on the ground
that said amount is invested in the deposit and from income of the
interest, claimants shall have to maintain or incur medical expenses
for routine and regular expenditure such income is required to be
considered. As the Motor Vehicles Act is benevolent legislation the
arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the respondent
no.2 is not acceptable.
12) As discussed above, the appellant – injured – original claimant is
entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of future income Rs.15,36,000/- Rs.21,50,400/-
including additional
amount of Rs.6,14,400/-
Pain, shock and Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.3,50,000/-
suffering and Loss of including additional
Amenities of Life amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
Special Diet and Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/-
Attendance including additional
amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
Transportation Rs.40,240/- Rs.40,240/-
Medical Expenses Rs.3,77,800/- Rs.3,77,800/-
Total compensation Rs.22,54,040/- Rs.34,18,440/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.11,64,400/-
Page 7 of 9
C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
13) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs
Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 274, has observed that there is no restriction that
compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed
by the claimant and in an appropriate case, where from the
evidence brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that
the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed,
the amount of compensation more than the claimed amount can
be awarded.
14) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.22,54,040/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.11,64,400/-
(Rs.34,18,440/- - Rs.22,54,040/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
15) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 05.01.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar, in MAC Petition No.283 of 2019 stands
modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award
remains unaltered. The respondent no.2 – Insurance Company shall
deposit the said additional amount of Rs.11,64,400/- 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
Page 8 of 9
C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026
forthwith.
16) The learned Tribunal is directed that enhanced amount towards
pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities, special diet and
attendant charges be 100% deposited and to meet with regular
expenditure, interest on said amount be given to the appellant –
original claimant.
17) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
18) Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.
19) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/02/2026 18:28:46
Page 9 of 9
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Accident Claim"Sign in to search