SONALBEN JASHWANTSINH SODHAPARMARversusBHARATBHAI BHURABHAI PATEL

    C/FA/4307/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4307 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes      No
                                                      √
==========================================================
            SONALBEN JASHWANTSINH SODHAPARMAR
                              Versus
              BHARATBHAI BHURABHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KRUNAL R SAKSENA(5915) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 23/01/2026
                            ORAL JUDGMENT


      Though served, respondent No.1 has not appeared before this
Court.
      Admit. With the consent of learned advocate appearing for
appellant and respondent No.2, appeal is taken up for 8nal hearing.

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is 8led by the appellant – original
claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
14.06.2024 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), at
Nadiad, District Kheda (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.128 of 2023, whereby the learned Tribunal was
pleased to award compensation of Rs.6,69,900/- to the appellant –
original claimant.



                                 Page 1 of 6
    C/FA/4307/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




[2.0] The brief facts leading to 8ling of present appeal is as follows:

[2.1] On the fateful day of accident i.e. on 02.01.2023, the appellant –
claimant was travelling by Rickshaw bearing No.GJ-23-Z-8092 which
was owned by original opponent No.1 and at around 12.30 p.m., when
the appellant – original claimant reached at the place of accident, due
to rash and negligent driving, the said rickshaw turned turtle as a
result of which the appellant – original claimant sustained seriuos
multipler injuries and therefore, the appellant herein – original
claimant     8led    MACP   No.128/2023       seeking   compensation           of
Rs.5,00,000/-.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the driver of oKending rickshaw solely negligent
for the accident and was pleased to award Rs.6,69,900/- to the original
claimant. Hence, the appellant – original claimant has 8led the present
First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appearing for the appellant –
original claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has
committed an error in not considering the minimum wages of
Rs.12,000/- per month prevailing at the time of accident i.e. in the year
2023 and considered only Rs.7500/- and learned Tribunal has also not
considered the future prospects of the claimant though the claimant
had sustained 28% disability in the accident. Hence, he has requested
to allow the present appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Krunal Saksena appearing for the
respondent No.2 – insurance company has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has not committed any error in absence of any proof of
income and has properly assessed the income in absence of any


                                Page 2 of 6
    C/FA/4307/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




evidence or material. Not only that, though claimant had claimed
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has been kind
enough to award compensation higher than the claimed amount. He
has further submitted that there was admission on the part of the
claimant which has come on record that claimant having no proof to
show her income of Rs.10,000/- per month and hence, impugned
judgment and award does not call for any interference by this Court.
Therefore, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

[5.0] In the present appeal, negligence and liability is not challenged
and present appeal only challenges the quantum of compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal and hence, present appeal is
considered in narrow compass to that extent only.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant – original
claimant and learned advocate for the insurance company and
perusing the record, it appears that the bone contention on behalf of
the appellant – original claimant is that the learned Tribunal has
considered meager income at Rs.7500/-. It is an admitted fact that no
evidence is produced on record to show the source of income of the
claimant. Herein, the accident took place in the year 2023 and income
of the claimant is assessed at Rs.7500/- per month. Even, as per the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav v.
New India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011)10 SCC 683] and Chandra
@ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav reported in
(2022)1 SCC 198, considering the guess work and minimum wages
prevailing in the year 2023, as the claimant was unskilled, her income
ought to have been assessed at Rs.9237/-. To that extent, the learned
Tribunal has committed an error. The claimant at the time of accident
was aged 26 years and therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble



                               Page 3 of 6
    C/FA/4307/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Rs.3694/- (40% of
Rs.9237/-) towards future prospect is required to be added which
would come to Rs.12,931/-. Considering the disability certi8cate
(Exh.24), it appears that the doctor has opined 39% disability body as a
whole of the claimant and even the learned advocate for opponent
No.2 has made an endorsement and parties have mutually agreed to
consider the disability at 28% and therefore, the learned Tribunal has
rightly considered the disability at 28%.

[6.1]   The appellant – claimant was aged 26 years at the time of
accident and therefore, in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier of 17
would apply. Hence, the appellant – original claimant would be
entitled to Rs.7,38,480/- [Rs.3620 (Rs.12,931 x 28%) x 12 x 17)]
towards future loss of income.

[6.2] Further, the claimant remained under treatment for a period of
8ve months and the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for
8ve months under the head of actual loss of income and hence,
compensation is required to be reassessed as Rs.64,655/- (Rs.12,931 x
5 months) under the head of actual loss of income. Further, the
learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of
medical expense which does not call for any interference. Further, so
far as other heads are concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded an
amount of Rs.28,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suKering;
Rs.23,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant
charges, which in considered opinion of this Court is just and proper
and does not call for any interference.



                                Page 4 of 6
    C/FA/4307/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




[7.0] Thus, now the appellant – original claimant is entitled to the
compensation as under:

                Heads        Amount         Reassessed by this Court
                             awarded     by
                             the Tribunal
     Future loss of income Rs.4,28,400/-           Rs.7,38,480/-
                                               including additional
                                             amount of Rs.3,10,080/-
     Actual loss of income Rs.37,500/-              Rs.64,655/-
                                               including additional
                                              amount of Rs.27,155/-
     Pain, shock and           Rs.28,000/-          Rs.28,000/-
     suKering                                           NIL
     Medical expenses         Rs.1,50,000/-        Rs.1,50,000/-
                                                        NIL
     Special           diet, Rs.23,000/-            Rs.23,000/-
     attendant          and                             NIL
     transportation
     charges
                     Total... Rs.6,66,900/-       Rs.10,04,135/-
                                               including additional
                                             amount of Rs.3,37,235/-


      Thus, total compensation of Rs.6,66,900/- as awarded by the
learned Tribunal is on lower side, for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, and therefore, same is required to be reassessed at
Rs.10,04,135/- and therefore, the impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal is modi8ed to the aforesaid extent.

[8.0] In view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2
Supreme Court Cases 274, 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


                                Page 5 of 6
       C/FA/4307/2025                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026




compensation than claimed, the amount of compensation more than
the claimed amount can be awarded.

[9.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 14.06.2024 by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), at Nadiad, District
Kheda in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.128 of 2023 is modi8ed
and respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit
reassessed amount of compensation of Rs.10,04,135/- alongwith
accrued interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal, with the learned
Tribunal within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of
the present judgment. Rest of the impugned judgment and award
remains unaltered.

[10.0]            After the aforesaid amount of reassessed compensation is
deposited by the insurance company, learned Tribunal is directed to
disburse the entire amount with accrued interest thereon, if any, to
the original claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after
proper veri8cation and after following due procedure.

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

[12.0]            Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
         Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.


                                                                                          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 23/01/2026 16:24:22




                                                   Page 6 of 6