NARESHKUMAR LAXMANBHAI PANCHALversusJAYKISHAN CHANDUBHAI CHAUHAN

     C/FA/4091/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4091 of 2023


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

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

            Approved for Reporting              Yes           No

============================================
              NARESHKUMAR LAXMANBHAI PANCHAL
                              Versus
            JAYKISHAN CHANDUBHAI CHAUHAN & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 12/02/2026

                              ORAL JUDGMENT


1)     Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award

        dated 25.07.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

        Tribunal (Auxi.), Panchmahals at Halol (which shall hereinafter

        be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident

        Claim Petition No.2928 of 2017 (Old MAC Petition No.971 of

        2016), the appellant – original claimant has preferred the

        present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,



                                  Page 1 of 7
     C/FA/4091/2023                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




        1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for

        short).


2)     Heard learned Advocate Mr. K. K. Thakkar, for the appellant –

        original Claimant and Mr. C. A. Mehta, learned Advocate for the

        respondent no.2 – Insurance Company. The respondent no.1 is

        duly served but did not appear before this Court. Perused the

        original record and proceedings.


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

        08.09.2016, the appellant being a pillion rider of Honda Dream

        motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-AR-5109, which was being

        ridden by its rider rashly and negligently and while turning it

        towards Hotel Sarvottam on Halol – Vadodara road, he lost

        control over it consequently, the applicant thrown out on road

        simultaneously, the applicant’s right hand pressed under the

        wheel of an Eicher truck coming from Vadodara side and the

        applicant sustained grievous injuries with multiple fractures.

        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 assessing the income of



                                   Page 2 of 7
     C/FA/4091/2023                             JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




        the appellant only at Rs.5,000/- per month, whereas, he was

        earning Rs.7,000/- per month by doing a private job in GIDC,

        Halol. He has further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in

        not considering addition towards future prospectus on the

        income of the appellant.     He has further submitted that the

        Tribunal has wrongly reduced the disability of the appellant from

        45% to 30% despite medical certificate and deposition of the

        Doctor are produced on record. He has further submitted that

        the learned Tribunal has awarded a pittance towards non

        pecuniary loss. 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 considered the income of the appellant and

        30% disability of the claimant and awarded just and proper

        compensation. Hence, he 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 issue of

        negligence, involvement of the vehicles and liability are not in

        dispute in the present appeal. The appeal is filed on limited

        ground qua enhancement of quantum hence the appeal is

        required to be decided in narrow compass. As per the law laid



                                 Page 3 of 7
     C/FA/4091/2023                             JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




        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 08.09.2016 and during

        that time the appellant – injured was doing private job in GIDC,

        Halol and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month, whereas, the

        learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.5,000/-, however, as per the

        minimum wages of the prevalent time the income of the

        appellant is required to be enhanced and the same is reassessed

        at Rs.7,700/- per month. It appears that the learned Tribunal

        has observed the age of claimant as 21 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 as per the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.

        Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700.


7)     It is undisputed fact that to prove his disablement, the claimant

        has examined Dr. D. H. Solanki, at Exhibit 23, wherein, he has

        assessed permanent partial disability of 82% and produced

        certificate at Mark 19/13. In his cross-examination he has

        conceded that it is true that the certificate does not show that



                                 Page 4 of 7
     C/FA/4091/2023                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




        the joints movements are restricted. He has further admitted

        that he has not used Goniometer to measure joint range of

        motion. He has further admitted that he has used Kessler’s A

        plus B formula to assess the disability. Therefore, the Tribunal

        has evaluated the oral evidence of Doctor and considered

        disability guidelines for persons with disability and rightly held

        30% functional disability of the appellant. Hence, no interference

        of this Court is required so far the functional disability to the

        extent of 30% of the appellant is concerned.


8)     Further, considering the age of claimant as 21 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, considering the nature of injury,

        period of hospitalization and disability the Tribunal has awarded

        Rs.30,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.1,775/-

        towards       Medical   Expense             and     Rs.6,000/-         towards

        Transportation, special diet and attendant charges which are

        also just and proper.


9)     Therefore,     recalculating     the     income      of   the    claimant       as

        Rs.7,700/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,080/- which

        comes to Rs.10,780/-. Now total income under the head of


                                      Page 5 of 7
      C/FA/4091/2023                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




         future loss of income is required to be considered as Rs.10,780/-

         x 12 x 18 x 30% / 100 = Rs.6,98,544/-. Therefore, the appellant

         is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,74,544/- towards

         future loss of income. Similarly, as this Court has reassessed

         the income of the appellant the actual loss of income of

         Rs.1,250/- is enhanced to Rs.15,400/- i.e. for two months

         (additional amount of Rs.14,150/-) towards actual loss of

         income.


10)     In view of the above, the appellant – injured – original claimant

         is entitled to get compensation computed as under:

                    Heads           Awarded by           Reassessed by this Court
                                      Tribunal
           Future loss of income    Rs.3,24,000/-              Rs.6,98,544/-
                                                        including additional amount of
                                                                Rs.3,74,544/-


             Medical expenses         Rs.1,775/-                    Rs.1,775/-

             Pain, shock and         Rs.30,000/-                 Rs.30,000/-
                 suffering
           Actual loss of income      Rs.1,250/-                Rs.15,400/-
                                                        including additional amount of
                                                                 Rs.14,150/-


              Transportation,         Rs.6,000/-                    Rs.6,000/-
              special diet and
             attendant charges
            Total compensation      Rs.3,63,025/-              Rs.7,51,719/-
                                                          including total additional
                                                          amount of Rs.3,88,694/-




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

         of Rs.3,63,025/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is

         entitled      to   get    additional        amount    of     Rs.3,88,694/-


                                       Page 6 of 7
       C/FA/4091/2023                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026




           (Rs.7,51,719/- - Rs.3,63,025/-) with proportionate costs and

           interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.


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

           award dated 25.07.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident

           Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Halol, in MAC Petition

           No.2928 of 2017 (Old MAC Petition No.971 of 2016) stands

           modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and

           award remains unaltered. The respondent no.2 – Insurance

           Company             shall        deposit          the       said       additional           amount            of

           Rs.3,88,694/- 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.


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

           court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the

           amount accordingly.

14)       Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.

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 13/02/2026 15:35:55




                                                       Page 7 of 7