C/FA/1593/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1593 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== COMMANDANT & ANR. Versus ALIMAMAD IBRAHIM SAMA & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MS AISHWARYA H CHAUDHARY(11539) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 04/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh in MACP No.403 of 2010. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that on the fateful day, the applicant was riding his motorcycle bearing No. GJ-12-AB-6456 carefully and on the correct side of the road. When he reached the place of accident, opponent No.1, driving Maruti Gypsy No. RJ-19-IC-3528 in a rash and negligent p. 2 C/FA/1593/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 manner and without due regard for the safety of other road users, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the applicant’s motorcycle, thereby causing the accident. As a result, the applicant sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body, as stated in the petition, and suffered permanent and total disability, which occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of opponent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Ms. Zeel Raval, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that in the present case the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and that, before the learned Tribunal, the claimant had admitted that he did not have the requisite driving licence at the relevant point of time. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation and has requested that the appellant be exonerated from making such payment. It was further submitted that the MACP was filed before the Tribunal after a delay of five years and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. On the contrary, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It was contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence, and hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Page 2 of 4 C/FA/1593/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone though the record, it appears that the incident took place in the year 2005 and, in that regard, an offence was registered with the Khavda Police Station being C.R. No.16 of 2005. The appellant appeared before the learned Tribunal and produced evidence at Exhibit 42, and opponent No.1 tendered evidence at Exhibit 57. The charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle was produced at Exhibit 47, the FIR at Exhibit 48, the panchnama at Exhibit 49, the MLC Certificate and Injury Certificates at Exhibits 50 and 51, the disability certificate at Exhibit 52, the case papers of the General Hospital at Exhibit 53, the discharge card at Exhibit 54, and the medical bills at Exhibit 55. 7. Upon perusal of the panchnama and the cross- examination of the claimant, nothing emerges to suggest that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent or that Maruti Gypsy No. RJ-19-IC-3528 was not driven negligently. Before the learned Tribunal, no defence regarding the driving licence was raised and, to prove such defence, no witness was examined. Even such an additional ground has been taken for the first time before this Court in the present appeal. It is trite law that he who asserts must prove the fact, and the learned Tribunal has rightly held opponent No.1 negligent and fastened liability upon the present appellant. 8. It appears that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month after p. 4 C/FA/1593/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 appreciating the evidence on record. After considering the MLC certificate at Exhibit 50, which shows fracture of the right finger, and the disability certificate at Exhibit 52, the learned Tribunal awarded just and proper compensation by assessing permanent disability at 15% and granting future prospects in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The learned Tribunal has also correctly applied the appropriate multiplier having regard to the age of the claimant and, in total, awarded compensation of Rs.1,94,000/-. No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal and, even otherwise, considering the modest quantum involved, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and award or to disturb the findings and reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal. 9. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper, which calls for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed. If any amount is lying deposited before this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the Record & Proceedings, if any, to the learned Tribunal forthwith. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI