PARSOTTAMBHAI PRATAPBHAI PATELversusSURESHKUMAR MANGARAMBHAI THAKKAR

      C/FA/3052/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3052 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

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

              Approved for Reporting                      Yes          No

==============================================
                PARSOTTAMBHAI PRATAPBHAI PATEL
                               Versus
           SURESHKUMAR MANGARAMBHAI THAKKAR & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==============================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                   Date : 23/01/2026

                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

1)      Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award

         dated 28.02.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

         Tribunal (Auxi.), Panchmahals at Godhra (hereinafter referred to as

         "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.226

         of 2020, 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).


2)      Heard Mr. H. M. Modi, learned Advocate for the appellant – original

         Claimant      and   Ms.    K.   S.   Pathak,   learned   Advocate     for     the


                                         Page 1 of 7
     C/FA/3052/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




        respondent no.3 – Insurance Company. The respondent nos.1 and

        2 despite being duly served remained absent.


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

        06.01.2020, the claimant was standing on the side of the road in

        Santroa Village, at that time the opponent no.1 came by driving his

        car bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-AH4743, in rash and negligent manner

        and hit the claimant. Due to which the claimant sustained grievous

        fracture injuries. The offence was registered being I-C.R. No.52 of

        2020 with Morva(H) Police Station. 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 by considering the income of the

        appellant as Rs.8,070/- per month without considering the rate as

        per minimum wages and also erred in not considering future

        prospective income. Hence, he has requested to allow the present

        appeal.


5)     Learned Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company has

        opposed the present appeal and submitted that the appellant is nto

        entitled for any enhancement in the compensation considering 13%

        disablement she has suffered minor injuries and this is not a case

        wherein due to the injuries the disablement resulted into loss of




                                   Page 2 of 7
     C/FA/3052/2025                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




        earning of the appellant. Considering the aforesaid facts the learned

        Tribunal has properly considered the compensation and in absence

        of any material or proof of income rightly assessed the income as

        Rs.8,070/- of unskilled labour. Hence, she has 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 18, wherein all the facts of the

        accident      have   been   narrated        in   the     chief-examination          and

        supported the claim petition. The claimant has produced complaint

        at Exhibit 22, panchnama at Exhibit 23 and charge-sheet at Exhibit

        28. Further, 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

        06.01.2020 and during that time the appellant – injured was doing

        centering work and agriculture work and earning Rs.10,000/-,

        whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as



                                      Page 3 of 7
     C/FA/3052/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




        Rs.8,070/- which is required to be considered as per the rate of

        minimum wages i.e. Rs.8,278/- and hence, the income of the

        appellant is reassessed as Rs.8,280/- per month. It appears that

        the learned Tribunal has observed the age of claimant as 32 years

        at the time of accident and the learned Tribunal has committed

        error in not considering future prospect, however, this Court is of

        the view that in view of the case of National Insurance

        Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700,

        the appellant is entitled for 40% addition towards future

        prospectus. Moreover, the parties have agreed to consider 13%

        disablement body as a whole before the learned Tribunal, therefore,

        once     the   parties   have    voluntarily   agreed   to   consider     13%

        disablement the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in

        considering 13% disability of the injured.


7)     Further, considering the age of claimant as 32 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] is just and proper and no interference of this Court is

        required. It is worthwhile to mention here that due to inadvertent

        mistake / arithmetical mistake in calculation of future loss of

        income in the impugned judgment the multiplier of 15 is reflected

        which is required to be corrected as multiplier of 16.




                                        Page 4 of 7
      C/FA/3052/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




8)      Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.52,206/- towards medical

         expenditure, Rs.15,000/- towards pain shock and sufferings,

         Rs.15,000/- towards special diet, attendant and transportation

         which are just and proper. However, as this Court has reassessed

         the income of the appellant the amount of Rs.24,210/- awarded

         towards actual loss of income is reassessed as Rs.24,840/-

         (additional Rs.630/-).



9)      Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as Rs.8,280/-

         and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,312/- which comes to

         Rs.11,592/-. Now total income under the head of loss of future

         income is required to be considered as Rs.11,592/- x 12 x 16 x

         13% / 100 = Rs.2,89,336/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to

         get additional amount of Rs.87,928/- towards loss of future

         income.


10)     So far the argument of the learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak for

         the Insurance Company regarding minor disablement is concerned,

         this Court is of the view that when the injured suffers injury

         whatever it is permanent or partial disablement, whether it affects

         the earning of the injured, is required to be considered while

         awarding the compensation. Hence, the argument canvassed by the

         learned Advocate for Insurance Company is not sustainable.




                                   Page 5 of 7
      C/FA/3052/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




11)     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.2,01,408/-         Rs.2,89,336/-
                                                      including additional
                                                     amount of Rs.87,928/-

             Medical Expenses      Rs.52,206/-              Rs.52,206/-

              Pain, shock and      Rs.15,000/-              Rs.15,000/-
                 suffering

                Special diet,      Rs.15,000/-              Rs.15,000/-
               attendant and
               transportation

           Actual loss of income   Rs.24,210/-            Rs.24,840/-
               for 3 months                           including additional
                                                      amount of Rs.630/-

            Total compensation     Rs.3,07,824/-          Rs.3,96,382/-
                                                    including total additional
                                                     amount of Rs.88,558/-



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

         of Rs.3,07,824/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is

         entitled to get additional amount of Rs.88,558/- (Rs.3,96,382/- -

         Rs.3,07,824/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by

         the learned Tribunal.


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

         dated 28.02.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

         Tribunal (Auxi), Panchmahals at Godhra, in MAC Petition No.226 of

         2020 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment

         and award remains unaltered.        The respondent no.3 – Insurance



                                     Page 6 of 7
       C/FA/3052/2025                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




           Company shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.88,558/-

           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 forthwith.


14)        The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit

           court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount

           accordingly.


15)        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 23/01/2026 17:05:01




                                                        Page 7 of 7