High Court of Gujarat
JAYESHKUMAR SIRILBHAI PARMARversusNAGINBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI ROHIT
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The High Court partially allowed the appeal, recalculating the claimant’s income and future economic loss, affirming the 80:20 negligence ratio, and directing payment of an additional Rs.5,98,550 with interest, thereby modifying the Tribunal’s award.
Summary
The appellant, injured in a road accident on 4 October 2019, appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging errors in income assessment, omission of future prospective earnings, and inadequate compensation for pain, shock and suffering. The High Court examined the Tribunal's reliance on the claimant's notional income of Rs.4,500 per month, finding that the minimum wage rate of Rs.8,200 per month should apply and that a 40% addition for future prospects is warranted. It upheld the Tribunal's 80:20 negligence ratio, applied the appropriate multiplier for the claimant’s age, and recalculated future economic loss, resulting in an additional Rs.5,98,550 to the compensation. The Court also affirmed that compensation may exceed the amount claimed and directed the insurance company to pay the enhanced sum with interest, barring interest for the first 571 days. The appeal was therefore partially allowed, modifying the Tribunal’s award accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's monthly income on a notional basis instead of using the minimum wage rate.
- Whether future prospective income should be included in the compensation calculation.
- Whether the 80:20 negligence ratio determined in a related case should be affirmed.
- Whether the Tribunal’s award for pain, shock, suffering and other heads is adequate.
- Whether interest is payable on the enhanced compensation amount.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
Motor Accident ClaimCompensation AssessmentIncome CalculationFuture Economic LossNegligence RatioInterest on CompensationMotor Vehicles Act
Judgment
C/FA/3142/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3142 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================
JAYESHKUMAR SIRILBHAI PARMAR
Versus
NAGINBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI ROHIT & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 22/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 07.02.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1094 of
2019, 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. N. A. Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellant –
original Claimant and Mr. T. B. Karia, learned Advocate for the
respondent no.3 – Insurance Company.
Page 1 of 7
C/FA/3142/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
3) It is the case of the appellant – original claimant that on
04.10.2019, at about 04:00 in the evening, on Ahmedabad –
Vadodara National Highway, near the end of Mogar Bridge the
applicant was standing behind the motorcycle on the side of th
road, at that time, one Vitkos Minibus bearing Reg. No.GJ-04-X-
9820 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the
motorcycle due to which the applicant sustained injuries and
admitted in the Hospital. A complaint being I-C.R.No.59 of 2019
was registered with Vasad 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 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.4,500/- per month on notional basis without
considering the rate as per minimum wages and also erred in not
considering future prospective income. He has further submitted
that the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount towards
pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities. 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 learned
Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence produced on record
and rightly assessed the income and awarded sufficient amount
towards other heads and therefore the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and proper. He has further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has properly dealt with the issue of negligent and
fastened the liability in the ratio of 80:20 for the occurrence of the
accident. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
Page 2 of 7
C/FA/3142/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
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 19, 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 26, panchnama at Exhibit 27 and charge-sheet at Exhibit
29. 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
04.10.2019 and during that time the appellant – injured was doing
job in Patanjali and also working as a Musician and earning
Rs.9,000/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
claimant as Rs.4,5000/- which is required to be considered as per
the rate of minimum wages and hence, the income of the appellant
is reassessed as Rs.8,200/- per month. It appears that the
learned Tribunal has observed the age of claimant as 35 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 40% addition towards future prospectus is required
to be awarded. Moreover, the parties have agreed to consider 55%
permanent disablement body as a whole before the learned
Tribunal, therefore, once the parties have voluntarily agreed to
Page 3 of 7
C/FA/3142/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
consider 55% disablement the learned Tribunal has not committed
any error in considering 55% disability of the injured.
7) Further, considering the age of claimant as 35 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. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,54,712/- towards
medical expenditure, Rs.20,000/- towards pain shock and
sufferings, Rs.20,000/- 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.13,500/- awarded towards actual loss of income is reassessed
as Rs.24,600/- (additional Rs.11,100/-).
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as Rs.8,200/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,280/- which comes to
Rs.11,480/-. Now total income under the head of future economic
loss is required to be considered as Rs.11,480/- x 12 x 16 x 55% /
100 = Rs.12,12,288/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get
additional amount of Rs.7,37,088/- towards future economic
loss.
9) So far negligence part is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken
into consideration the judgment in MAC Petition No.1071 of 2019,
arising out of the same accident, and the present opponent no.1 –
driver of Vitkos Minibus bearing Reg. No.GJ-04-X-9820 was held
negligent to the extent of 80%, whereas, the other party who was
held 20% negligent have not been joined as party in the present
case. In view of above, once in another matter the Tribunal has
Page 4 of 7
C/FA/3142/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
already held negligence in the ratio of 80:20 percentage, then such
finding is required to be confirmed and no interference of this Court
is required to be called for and arguments canvassed on the said
aspect and no ground is raised and hence no discussion is required
on the issue of negligence. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for
80% amount of the enhanced amount.
10) As discussed above, the appellant – injured – original claimant is
entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future economic loss Rs.4,75,200/- Rs.12,12,288/-
including additional
amount of Rs.7,37,088/-
Medical Expenditure Rs.1,54,712/- Rs.1,54,712/-
Pain, shock and Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
suffering
Special diet, Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
attendant and
transportation
Actual loss of income Rs.13,500/- Rs.24,600/-
for 3 months including additional
amount of Rs.11,100/-
Total compensation Rs.6,83,412/- Rs.14,31,600/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.7,48,188/-
After deducting Rs.5,46,730/- Rs.11,45,280/-
negligence (after deducting (after deducting 20%
20% negligence) negligence)
(Rs.14,31,600/- -
Rs.2,86,320/-)
Enhanced amount Rs.5,98,550/-
of compensation (Rs.11,45,280/- - Rs.5,46,730/-)
Page 5 of 7
C/FA/3142/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
11) 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.
12) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.5,46,730/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.5,98,550/-
(Rs.11,45,280/- - Rs.5,46,730/-) with proportionate costs and
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
13) So far the interest on the enhanced amount is concerned, pursuant
to the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, the appellant is not entitled to claim interest on the said
enhanced amount for the period of 571 days.
14) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 07.02.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad, in MAC Petition No.1094 of 2019
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.5,98,550/- 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.
Page 6 of 7
C/FA/3142/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
15) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount
accordingly.
16) 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 17:01:31
Page 7 of 7
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