C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2221 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== TARAL RAJESHBHAI NARANBHAI Versus RAMJILAL HANUMAN SAHAY PUNIYA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 05/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1) By way of present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”), the appellant – original claimant has assailed the impugned judgment and award dated 28th October, 2024 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 52 of 2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”), whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition Cled by the appellant – original claimant and by way of present appeal, claimant has sought enhancement C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 of compensation. 2) The brief facts of the case of appellant are that, an accident that took place on 19.08.2022 which involved the MV Trailer No. RJ-52-GA-7705 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by driver of opponent No. 1 which was also of the ownership of opponent No.1 and which according to the claim petition, was duly insured by opponent No.2, the Insurance Company. In the said accident, claimant sustained fracture injury and therefore, the appellant herein – claimant Cled MACP No. 52 of 2023 wherein the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.10,14,200/-. However, as the learned Tribunal did not consider future prospects of the claimant and hence, present appeal is Cled. 3) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kaash Thakkar for the appellant and learned Advocate Ms. Dimple Thakkar appearing for opponent No. 2 – the Insurance Company. Opponent Nos. 1 and 3, though duly served, have remained absent. It is further noted that the Insurance Company, Reliance General Industries, is otherwise not served with regard to the liability. 4) Learned advocate for the appellant has mainly assailed the judgment on the ground that the claimant was 37 years of age and had suGered 37% permanent disability, and even as per consent, 37% disability is required to be considered. The learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the claimant as C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 ₹12,000/-, considering that he was engaged in agricultural and masonry work. However, while computing the compensation, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospective income. On this limited ground relating to quantum, particularly the non-grant of future prospective income, he has requested to Crst allow the present appeal. 5) Hence, with the consent of the learned advocates for both parties, the appeal is taken up for Cnal hearing, as the issue is required to be decided within a narrow compass. 6) Upon perusal of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the claimant, along with the other claimants, had Cled the claim petition seeking compensation. In the present appeal, only the aspect of quantum has been challenged. Accordingly, this Court has conCned its consideration to the said limited issue, which falls within a narrow compass. 7) At the time of the incident, the claimant was 37 years of age. Though he did not produce any evidence to prove his income, the learned Tribunal, considering the prevailing rates of minimum wages and the nature of his work in agriculture and masonry, assessed his monthly income at ₹12,000/-. In the absence of documentary evidence, such assessment appears to be just and proper for the purpose of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 8) Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the assessment of 37% permanent disability is not in dispute between the parties, and the said disability of the body as a whole has been rightly considered for determining just and proper compensation. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15. It further appears that the reference to the multiplier of 18 in the judgment is a typographical error, as the correct multiplier to be applied for a person aged 37 years, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, is ‘15’, which has in fact been applied in the computation. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospective income, as mandated by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 9) In view of the settled principles, 40% future prospective income is required to be added. If such future rise of 40% is considered, the additional amount would come to ₹4,800/- per month, thereby enhancing the monthly income from ₹12,000/- to ₹16,800/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹7,99,200/-. However, if the monthly income of ₹16,800/-, 37% permanent disability, and the multiplier of 15 are applied, the amount of compensation would come to ₹11,18,880/-. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to an enhanced amount of ₹3,19,680/- towards future loss of income. Rest of the impugned judgment and award is not required to be interfered with. Page 4 of 6 C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 Heads Awarded by Tribunal Reassessed by this Court Future loss of income Rs.7,99,200/- Rs.11,18,880/- Actual loss of income Rs.48,000/- Rs.48,000/- Pain, shock and suGering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Special diet, attendant charges and transportation Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.92,000/- Rs.92,000/- Total Compensation Rs.10,14,200/- Rs.13,33,880/- including additional amount of Rs.3,19,680/- 10) In view of the above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of ₹10,14,200/-, and since the original claimant is entitled to an enhancement of ₹3,19,680/-, the total compensation payable comes to ₹13,33,880/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 11) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 27.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Banaskantha, in MAC Petition No.52 of 2023 stands modiCed to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. Appellant is entitled and awarded C/FA/2221/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 the enhanced amount of Rs.3,19,680/- 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. Thereafter, Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation (lying in the FDR with the Tribunal including the enhanced compensation) with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant which shall be deposited by A/c Payee Cheque/ NEFT/ RTGS, after proper veriCcation and after following due procedure. 12) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deCcit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 13) Award to be drawn accordingly. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) GARVITA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/12/2025 17:59:43