VIPULKUMAR POPATBHAI PARMARversusVIPULKUMAR ISHWARBHAI PATEL

    C/FA/2816/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2816 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes      No
                                                      √
==========================================================
                 VIPULKUMAR POPATBHAI PARMAR
                               Versus
              VIPULKUMAR ISHWARBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 09/01/2026
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is <led by the appellant – original
claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
09.10.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Anand (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.318 of 2018, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased
to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation of
Rs.3,68,687/- to the appellant – original claimant.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to <ling of present appeal is as follows:

[2.1] On 12.06.2018, the appellant – original claimant was riding
Motorcycle No.GJ-23-K-912 at moderate speed on the correct side
of road and when the claimant reached on the place of accident, at

                                 Page 1 of 6
      C/FA/2816/2025                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




that time, driver of Eeco Car bearing registration No.GJ-01-KS-832
(hereinafter referred to as “oIending vehicle”) being driven by
opponent No.1 in full speed in rash and negligent manner came on
wrong side and dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant thereby
causing serious injuries to the appellant – claimant. Therefore, the
appellant herein – original claimant <led MACP No.318/2018
seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the driver of oIending Eeco Car solely
negligent for the accident and was pleased to award Rs.3,68,687/-
to the original claimant. Hence, the appellant – original claimant has
<led      the      present    First     Appeal         seeking   enhancement            of
compensation.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the
appellant – original claimant has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed an error in considering monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.5000/- and not considering minimum wages of
the year 2018 i.e. Rs.8000/- for unskilled person and accordingly,
the     learned        Tribunal   has     not         awarded    just   and     proper
compensation. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal
has not even considered 40% escalation towards future prospects
and has not awarded just and proper compensation under the head
of future loss of income. Hence, he has requested to allow the
present appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty appearing for the
respondent No.2 – insurance company has opposed the present
appeal by submitting that the learned Tribunal has awarded just



                                        Page 2 of 6
    C/FA/2816/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




and proper compensation which does not call for any interference
by this Court. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the <rst appeal.

[5.0] Present appeal is <led on limited ground of quantum of
compensation and therefore, same is considered in narrow
compass.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant – original
claimant and learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – insurance
company and perusing the record, it appears that the learned
Tribunal has considered the evidence produced and adduced by
both the parties including the aMdavit of the claimant (Exh.20) and
complaint (Exh.28) and panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.29)
and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and
Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635,
wherein it is held that it is settled law that negligence is required to
be proved in claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on
the touchstone of the preponderance of probability and not
beyond doubt and even as per the complaint, it emerges that the
driver of the oIending Eeco Car came driving his vehicle in rash and
negligent manner with full speed and coming on wrong side hit the
motorcycle of the claimant and therefore, the learned Tribunal has
rightly considered 100% negligence on the part of the oIending
Eeco Car.

[6.1] So far as argument canvassed by learned advocate for the
appellant – original claimant that the learned Tribunal has
considered monthly income of claimant at Rs.6000/- and not has
considered minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident i.e. in



                                Page 3 of 6
   C/FA/2816/2025                           JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




the year 2018. Perusing the evidence it appears that the claimant
was unskilled and therefore, considering minimum wages prevailing
in the year 2018, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered
monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8000/- and as the claimant
was aged 20 years at the time of accident, in view of decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% i.e.
Rs.3200/- (40% of Rs.8000/-) and therefore, future monthly income
would come to Rs.11,200/-. Further, the parties have mutually
agreed to examine permanent disability of the claimant at 25%
body as a whole and in this regard joint purshis is produced at
Exh.36. Further, as the claimant was aged 20 years, in view of
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma
& Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009
ACJ 1298, by applying the multiplier of 18, the claimant would be
entitled to Rs.6,04,800/- [Rs.2800 (Rs.11,200 x 25%) x 12 x 18)
towards future loss of income.


[6.2] So far as actual loss of income is concerned, the learned
Tribunal has awarded actual loss of income for one month however,
considering monthly income of claimant at Rs.11,200/-, it would be
just and proper to award compensation of Rs.11,200/- towards
actual loss of income. So far as compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal under the head of medical expenses is concerned,
no interference is called for as the learned Tribunal relying on
medical bills produced at Exh.35 has rightly awarded Rs.18,687/-
towards medical expenditure. So far as compensation under the
head of pain, shock and suIering is concerned, considering the fact
that claimant sustained 25% permanent disability body as a whole,
claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain,

                             Page 4 of 6
   C/FA/2816/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




shock and su@ering. Further, under the head of special diet,
attendant charges and transportation, amount awarded is
Rs.10,000/-, which does not call for any interference. Hence, the
claimant is now entitled to get the compensation as under:

                    Heads    Awarded by      Reassessed by this Court
                              Tribunal
            Future loss of   Rs.3,24,000/-        Rs.6,04,800/-
               income                         including additional
                                             amount of Rs.2,80,800/-
            Actual loss of    Rs.6,000/-            Rs.11,200/-
               income                          including additional
                                               amount of Rs.5,200/-
           Pain, shock and    Rs.10,000/-           Rs.25,000/-
              suIering                         including additional
                                              amount of Rs.15,000/-
         Medical Expenses     Rs.18,687/-            Rs.18,687/-
                                                         NIL
           Special diet,      Rs.10,000/-            Rs.10,000/-
        attendant charges                                NIL
        and transportation
              Total          Rs.3,68,687/-         Rs.6,69,687/-
           Compensation                        including additional
                                             amount of Rs.3,01,000/-


[7.0] It is needless to say that the MV Act is a benevolent
legislation which has been framed with the object of providing
relief to the victims, or their families and there is no bar that
compensation is restricted up to the claim of the claimant and the
High Court and Tribunal have to award the compensation upto that
extent. In this regard reference is required to be made to the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa
Vs Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 274, wherein it has been observed that there is no



                               Page 5 of 6
       C/FA/2816/2025                                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2026




restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the
amount claimed by the claimant 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.

[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, First Appeal is allowed and
the impugned judgment and award dated 09.10.2024 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Anand in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.318 of 2018 is modi<ed and the amount
of compensation is reassessed as Rs.6,69,687/- and the respondent
No.2 - insurance Company is directed to deposit the reassessed
compensation amount i.e. Rs.6,69,687/- alongwith accrued interest
at the rate of 8% per annum within a period of FOUR WEEKS from
the date of receipt of this order.

[9.0] The           Tribunal           shall       disburse           the        entire         amount           of
compensation (lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal including
the enhanced amount of compensation), with accrued interest
thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT /
RTGS, after proper veri<cation and after following due procedure.

[10.0]             While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct
the courts fees, if not paid.

[11.0]             Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                     (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
       Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
       Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/01/2026 15:17:34




                                                    Page 6 of 6