SAMIR ANVARBHAI MATHUPOTRAversusHANIF ISHAK LAKHANI MALEK

      C/FA/2626/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2626 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

==============================================

              Approved for Reporting                Yes          No

==============================================
                 SAMIR ANVARBHAI MATHUPOTRA
                               Versus
               HANIF ISHAK LAKHANI MALEK & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SABINA M MANSURI(3631) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==============================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 03/02/2026

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1)      Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award

         dated 20.04.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

         Tribunal (Auxi.), Jamnagar (which shall hereinafter be referred to

         as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition

         No.70 of 2018, the appellant – original claimant has preferred the

         present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

         (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).




                                    Page 1 of 10
     C/FA/2626/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




2)     Heard Mr. M. I. Mansuri, learned Advocate for the appellant –

        original Claimant and Mr. R. P. Raval, learned Advocate for the

        respondent no.3 – Insurance Company. Perused the original record

        and proceedings.


3)     It is the case of the appellant – original claimant that his son

        namely Samir Anvarbhai (who shall hereinafter be referred to as

        “injured” for short) on 08.06.2017 at 08:00 AM in the morning,

        was driving his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-10-CL-

        0630 and was coming to Higher Secondary School at Navagam to

        fill up the examination form of Class-12, at that time the driver of

        the Alto Car bearing Reg. No.GJ-05-CD-0061 i.e. the opponent no.1

        came in rash and negligent manner and collided with the

        motorcycle of the injured due to which the injured sustained serious

        head injury and also sustained fracture in his right leg. A complaint

        was lodged being I-C.R. No.31/2017 with Kalavad Police Station

        against the opponent no.1. 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 committed error in awarding compensation as the

        alleged incident took place in the year 2017 but rate of minimum

        wages of prevalent time is not considered. He has further submitted


                                   Page 2 of 10
     C/FA/2626/2022                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




        that the Tribunal erred in attributing 30% contributory negligence

        through charge-sheet is filed against the opponent no.1. He has

        further submitted that considering the nature of injuries and ever-

        since he is bedridden and not in position to do his routine work on

        his own and performs all his daily activities in bed, 100% disability

        is required to be considered. Hence, he has requested to allow the

        present appeal.


5)     Learned Advocate for the respondent no.3 – Insurance Company

        has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned

        Tribunal has properly assessed the income of the injured and 90%

        disability is also considered, hence, question does not arise to

        enhance the compensation. The Tribunal has after appreciating the

        evidence produced on record held 30% contributory negligent on

        the part of the injured and therefore the said findings are not

        required to be disturbed and requested to dismiss the present

        appeal.

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. The claimant

        has tendered the affidavit at Exhibit 33, wherein, all the facts of the

        accident      have   been   narrated    in   the     chief-examination          and



                                     Page 3 of 10
     C/FA/2626/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




        supported the claim petition. To prove his case he has further

        adduced the FIR at Exhibit 37, panchnama at Exhibit 39, charge-

        sheet at Exhibit 40 filed against the car driver, RC Book of

        offending vehicle at Exhibit 41, Medical Bills at Exhibits 48, 56 to

        60, Disability Certificate at Exhibit 52.


7)     So far issue of negligence is concerned, two vehicles are involved in

        the accident and the injured was riding the motorcycle. Going

        through the cross examination of the claimant it reveals that the

        car came from opposite direction and there was narrow road and

        while taking turn alleged incident took place and there was head on

        collision between the two vehicles. Further, the opponent no.1 –

        Hanifbhai Ishakbhai Malek i.e. the driver of car is examined and

        tendered his evidence at Exhibit 63, it appears that it was the duty

        of the motorcyclist – injured also to take care while taking the turn

        but due to rash and negligence he collided with the car. It further

        reveals that the driver of car has applied breaks from 25 feet away

        and he has taken care to avoid the accident. Further perusing the

        panchnama it appears that there was four track road and enough

        width and two vehicles could easily pass and the incident took place

        in the morning. Further driver of the car has stated that he was

        driving his car in moderate speed and accident took place due to

        sole negligence of the motorcyclist but considering the size of

        vehicle and evidence on record both the drivers contributed in the

        accident and considered negligence of both the drivers of the




                                    Page 4 of 10
     C/FA/2626/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




        vehicles i.e. the injured – motorcyclist held negligent to the extent

        of 30% and driver of offending vehicle held 70% negligent in

        causing the accident.   Perusing the evidence produced on record

        not merely based on presumption but the driver of car stepped into

        witness box and deposed before the learned Tribunal and based on

        documentary    evidence    the    learned   Tribunal     has     properly

        appreciated the evidence and considered contributory negligence in

        the apportion of 30%-70% considering size of vehicle and therefore

        no interference is required qua apportionment of negligence and

        hence findings of the Tribunal is maintained.


8)     Now coming to the quantum part, 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 prevailing rate of minimum wages in absence of evidence

        of monthly income of the claimant. In the present case the accident

        occurred on 08.06.2017 and during that time the injured was doing

        agricultural work and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, however,

        the Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.5,000/- per month,

        whereas, the rate of unskilled person is Rs.7,946/- and hence

        hence the income of the injured is reassessed as Rs.8,000/- per

        month. It appears that the learned Tribunal has observed the age

        of injured as 20 years at the time of accident and the learned

        Tribunal has committed error in not considering future prospect,




                                  Page 5 of 10
      C/FA/2626/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




         however, this Court is of the view that 40% addition towards

         future prospectus is required to be awarded.


9)      It is undisputed fact that to prove disablement of the injured, the

         Disability Certificate produced at Exhibit 52, issued by Dr. Kant

         Jogani who is Neurosurgeon, wherein, he has assessed 90%

         neurological disability. As per his evidence the patient cannot speak

         much, can move arms and legs, can open eyes, but cannot perform

         his daily routine works on his own and patient performs all his daily

         routine in the bed and currently unable to speak or walk. Due to

         injuries operation was performed and removed the hemorrhage and

         performed a chromiotomy and assessed 90% disability. However,

         this Court is of the view that as the injured is bedridden and unable

         to walk and speak and perform his routine activities and requires

         life time attendant, 100% functional disability is required to be

         considered in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

         case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011 (1)

         SCC 343. Accordingly, disability of the injured is reassessed at

         100% functional disability.


10)     Further, considering the age of claimant as 20 years at the time of

         accident the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 18 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] is just and proper and no interference of this Court is

         required. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,76,429/- towards


                                   Page 6 of 10
      C/FA/2626/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




         Medical Expenses considering the medical bills produced at Exhibits

         48, 56 to 60, and therefore the same is just and proper.


11)     Therefore, recalculating the income of the injured 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 future economic loss is

         required to be considered as Rs.11,200/- x 12 x 18 x 100% / 100 =

         Rs.24,19,200/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get

         additional amount of Rs.14,47,200/- towards future economic

         loss.


12)     Similarly, considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment

         and recovery, younger age and disablement of the injured, this

         Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has committed error

         while awarding Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering

         which is required to be enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- (i.e. additional

         amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering)

         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.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced in

         view of Reshma (supra) to Rs.5,00,000/- (i.e. additional amount

         of Rs.4,50,000/- towards attendant charges).



                                    Page 7 of 10
      C/FA/2626/2022                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




                 The Tribunal has also committed error in not awarded any

         compensation      towards    loss    of      enjoyment    of   life,   however,

         considering the disablement and bedridden condition of the injured

         Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of enjoyment of life.

         Further, as this Court has reassessed the disability of the injured

         and considered 100% functional disability, the claimant is not

         entitled for any amount towards actual loss of income.


13)     As discussed above, the appellant – injured is entitled to get

         compensation computed as under:

                   Heads             Awarded by           Reassessed by this Court
                                      Tribunal
           Future economic loss      Rs.9,72,000/-           Rs.24,19,200/-
                                                           including additional
                                                         amount of Rs.14,47,200/-

             Medical expenses        Rs.5,76,429/-                Rs.5,76,429/-

              Pain, shock and        Rs.1,00,000/-             Rs.2,50,000/-
                 suffering                                  including additional
                                                          amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

           Actual loss of income     Rs.60,000/-                   NIL
                                                             (100% functional
                                                                disability)

              Transportation,        Rs.50,000/-               Rs.5,00,000/-
              special diet and                              including additional
             attendant charges                            amount of Rs.4,50,000/-

           Loss of enjoyment of          NIL/-                 Rs.1,00,000/-
                    life                                    including additional
                                                          amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

            Total compensation     Rs.17,58,429/-             Rs.38,45,629/-
                                                         including total additional
                                                         amount of Rs.21,47,200/-




                                       Page 8 of 10
      C/FA/2626/2022                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




               After deducting       Rs.12,30,901/-        Rs.26,91,941/-
                 negligence          (after deducting   (after deducting 30%
                                    30% negligence of negligence of the injured)
                                       the injured)       (Rs.38,45,629/- -
                                                           Rs.11,53,688/-)

              Enhanced amount                     Rs.14,61,040/-
               of compensation           (Rs.26,91,941/- - Rs.12,30,901/-)



14)     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.

15)     In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation

         of Rs.12,30,901/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is

         entitled      to     get   additional     amount     of    Rs.14,61,040/-

         (Rs.26,91,941/- - Rs.12,30,901/-) with proportionate costs and

         interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.


16)     Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award

         dated 20.04.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

         Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar, in MAC Petition No.70 of 2018 stands

         modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award

         remains unaltered. The respondent no.3 – Insurance Company shall

         deposit the said additional amount of Rs.14,61,040/- along with



                                        Page 9 of 10
       C/FA/2626/2022                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




           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.


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 04/02/2026 12:27:17




                                                      Page 10 of 10