NURMOHAMMAD IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKHversusMAHERA LAKSHMANBHAI VAGHABHAI

     C/FA/403/2015                              ORDER DATED: 30/01/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 403 of 2015

==========================================================
                NURMOHAMMAD IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH
                            Versus
              MAHERA LAKSHMANBHAI VAGHABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

                            Date : 30/01/2026

                             ORAL ORDER


1.    The present appeal arises from the judgment and award
dated 03.03.2014 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.
302 of 2007 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Nadiad. By
way of the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal was
pleased to award a sum of Rs 1,73,400/-                  together with
proportional costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of the petition till the realization from the opponents.
Furthermore, the opponents no. 1, 2 and 3 were held jointly liable
towards the awarded amount.



2.    The accident in question occurred on 13.05.2006 near
Madhavpura within the limits of Kothamba Police Station. It
appears that on the fateful day, the present Appellant(original
claimant Noor Mohammad Ibrahimbhai Shiekh) was waiting with
one of his friends by the side of the road when a truck bearing


                                Page 1 of 6
     C/FA/403/2015                          ORDER DATED: 30/01/2026




registration no. GJ-01-TT-9224 came, being driven in a rash and
negligent manner to the said place and hit the claimant as well as
the friend, who was accompanying him. As a result, the Appellant
suffered injuries for which, he received treatment and also
preferred the present claim petition for compensation.



3.   The present appeal is only confined to assailing the
quantum of compensation awarded to the Appellant.



4.   Heard learned advocate Mr. Shushil R Shukla for the
Appellant. He has submitted that the original claim petition was
preferred claiming an amount to the tune of Rs 7,00,000/-. Such
an amount was claimed for the reason that the Appellant was a
person employed in country of Kuwait. It was submitted that the
Appellant had a valid visa which is apparent from document Exh.
43- the passport of the said individual wherein, a residency visa
appears on internal page no. 09. Relying on the said document it
was submitted that the appellant’s visa was valid till 29.06.2006
and that at the relevant point of time, the appellant had visited
India on the holidays. It was submitted that appellant was holding
multiple entry visas and that therefore, he was scheduled to
move back to Kuwait after the conclusion of his visit to India. It
was submitted that he was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month doing
tailoring work in Kuwait. He has taken this Court to the afÏdavit
of examination-in-chief wherein the stand of the Appellant is that
he was earning Rs. 35,000 per month/-. It was submitted, relying



                             Page 2 of 6
     C/FA/403/2015                                   ORDER DATED: 30/01/2026




on the said afÏdavit of the examination-in-chief Exh-23, that the
Appellant had undergone a long period of treatment in the
hospital and that he had suffered a disability of 16% in his body
as a whole. It was submitted that despite continuing his
occupation as a tailor, the Appellant has suffered a significant
loss of efÏciency due to the leg injury and that the Court may
enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal, as the
Tribunal has only considered the monthly income of the
Appellant as Rs 3,000/- per month.



5.   Having heard the learned advocate, this Court proceeds to
decide     the       present   application      in   terms      hereinbelow,
notwithstanding the fact that the learned advocate for the
respondent, i.e. learned advocate Ms. R.V. Acharya is on sick note.
This is so as the appeal has scant merits and this Court, as such, is
inclined to dismiss the Appeal.             It appears that in order to
buttress the assertion in the afÏdavit of examination-in-chief,
namely, that the Appellant was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month,
the learned advocate for the Appellant has not drawn attention
of this Court to any document which indicates that for every
month, the Appellant was earning Rs 35,000/-. Even the basic
facts pertaining to the establishment that the Appellant was
working with, has not been disclosed. Thus, it is not even clear if
indeed the Appellant was working, and if so, earning his
livelihood in which manner. Naturally, if the Appellant was
working in Kuwait, he would have repatriated certain amounts to
his family. Those banking details, of the contemporaneous


                                  Page 3 of 6
     C/FA/403/2015                           ORDER DATED: 30/01/2026




period, could have been easily produced by the Appellant before
the Tribunal. On perusal of the Record and Proceedings, it
transpires that at least from 30.07.2012 to 18.04.2013,
adjournment applications have been filed in the Tribunal,
allegedly to procure necessary documents and instructions. And
all of this was after the conclusion of cross-examination of the
Appellant on 01.05.2012. Thus, it is clear that the Appellant,
despite ample opportunity has not bothered to adduce any
document as regards his income before the Tribunal. Even before
this Court, not even a feeble attempt has been made to show
that such evidence exists. Therefore, the fact that Tribunal has
relied on the usual standard of assessing notional income, for the
purpose of deciding the income of the Appellant, was the only
approach left with the Tribunal. In the circumstances this Court is
not inclined to interfere in the monthly assessment of
compensation of the Appellant. Furthermore, merely because
the document Exh-43, the passport, indicated that the Appellant
was scheduled to go back to Kuwait does not translate to his
monthly income being Rs 35,000/- per month in Kuwait. Thus, the
finding of the Tribunal that the notional income of the Appellant
be considered at Rs. 3,000/- per month, is sustainable. Again, the
learned advocate does not dispute the multiplier applied by the
Tribunal.



6.   Insofar as disability is concerned, the learned advocate
does not dispute the conclusion of the Tribunal to the extent
that 16% partial disability for the body as a whole, which was


                             Page 4 of 6
     C/FA/403/2015                                     ORDER DATED: 30/01/2026




agreed to, between the parties. It is clear that the said disability
has been considered by the concerned Court. Even the other
heads of granting the compensation namely, Pain, Shock and
Suffering has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs 10,000/-. This is
also sustainable, more so, when the afÏdavit of the examination-
in-chief does not spell anything as regards to the total period of
hospitalization. It simply states that the period of hospitalization
was “long”. Even on specific questions by this Court to the
learned advocate for the Appellant, he has not been able to point
out anything from the record, which would indicate the period of
hospitalization of the Appellant. This would seriously prejudice
the right of the other side to effectively cross-examination, more
so when the afÏdavit of examination-in-chief, itself, is vague.
Thus, assessment of compensation, under the head of “Pain,
Shock and Suffering” is correctly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.
10,000/-, that too, for an accident of the year 2006. Again, the
medical expenditure, on the basis of the bills produced on record,
has been awarded by the Tribunal, which the learned advocate
for the Appellant does not dispute. Insofar as the compensation
on   account         of   Special    Diet,        Attendant     Charges          and
Transportation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs 5,000/-; and for
actual loss of two months, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,000/-.
Now, in absence of any clarity on the period for which the
Appellant was hospitalized, the Tribunal, has taken a liberal
period of 2 months of hospitalization and has accordingly
awarded the compensation under the head of Actual Loss of
Income. Albeit, it may be noted that the Appellant was on a


                                    Page 5 of 6
        C/FA/403/2015                                                   ORDER DATED: 30/01/2026




vacation in India for the period around the accident.

7.        In the circumstances this Court does not believe that the
impugned judgment and award is liable to be interfered with.
Accordingly the present appeal is liable to be rejected and is
accordingly disposed of as rejected.


                                                                                 (J. L. ODEDRA, J)
ADITYA SINGH

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ADITYA SINGH(HC02376), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 31/01/2026 17:59:53




                                               Page 6 of 6