Vallabhbhai Karshanbhai Godavariya vs Jentibhai Tapubhai Kapadiya & Ors

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.09.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondal, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 32 of 2017, the appellant – original claimant preferred present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2) Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellant – original Claimant and Mr. Yogi K. Gadhiya, learned Advocate for respondent no.3. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3) It is the case of the appellant that on 07.09.2016, the appellant along with his family was returning from Magharvada on motorcycle bearing No.GJ-03-EG-5974 and when they reached near village Kherda, at that time, one car bearing No.GJ-03-4875 came with full speed and in rash and negligent manner in wrong side and dashed with the motorcycle of the appellant. As a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the appellant has filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,58,400/-.

4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal is filed mainly on the ground of quantum of income and future prospects. But while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed income aspect. Therefore, present appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass whether future prospect is required to be considered or not.

5) Learned advocate Mr. Gadhia, for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and no interference is required to call for. With these submissions he has requested to dismissed the appeal.

6) 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 prevalent minimum wages in absence of ample evidence of monthly income of the injured. In the present case, the accident occurred in 2016 and during that time, as per the Government approved minimum wages, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured as Rs.5,000/- per month which is not pressed by learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, income of the injured as assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/- p.m is just and proper.

7) So far as disability is concerned, the appellant has produced a disability certificate at Exh:66 showing that the appellant has sustained 38 % permanent partial disability, but the Tribunal has considered 19%, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant and the same remains undisturbed.

8) As the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 13 as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which is also just and proper. But the Tribunal has committed error in not considering any future prospects income. Therefore, if we reassess the compensation with reassessed income of the injured as Rs.5000/- p.m income on adding future prospects income at 25 %, then it would come to Rs.1,250/- p.m. So per month income comes to Rs.6250/- and by applying 13 multiplier and deduction of 19 % disability, it comes to Rs.1,85,250/- (Rs.6,250/- x 12 months x 13 multiplier x 19% disability) under the head of future loss of income.

9) So far other conventional heads are concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the same and therefore, the same do not require any interference.

10) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation computed as under:

Heads

Awarded by

Tribunal

Reassessed by this Court

Future loss of income

Rs.1,48,200/-

Rs.1,85,250/-

Mental Pain, shock and sufferings

Rs.30,000/-

Rs.30,000/-

Medical expense

Rs.1,75,000/-

Rs.1,75,000/-

Actual loss of income

Rs.15,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

Transportation, Special diet, and attendant charges

Rs.30,000/-

Rs.30,000/-

10% deduction towards negligent

39,820/-

43,525/-

Total compensation

Rs.3,58,400/-

Rs.3,91,725/-

11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,58,400/-/-, however, as discussed above the appellant would be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.33,325/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

12) Hence, present appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 30.09.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondal, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 32 of 2017 stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent No.3 – Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs.33,325/- 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 Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. Award to be drawn accordingly.