C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2124 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================== SACHIN KANTILAL BHAYANI Versus MANISHBHA RAYDEBHA KER & ANR. ============================================== Appearance: MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS SABINA M MANSURI(3631) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ============================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 04/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 05.01.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.283 of 2019, the appellant – original claimant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short). Page 1 of 9 C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 2) Heard Mr. M. I. Mansuri, learned Advocate for the appellant – original Claimant and Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 – Insurance Company. The respondent no.1 was 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 on 15.08.2019, the claimant was returning home on his bicycle after completion of his duty. In the meantime, when he reached near Satyam Talkies, Mithapur, the car bearing Reg. No.GJ-12-CP-1616 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, took in its sweep the claimant and his bicycle, and run wheel of the car over waist of the applicant. 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 erred in assessing income of the appellant and ought to have considered as per the minimum wages of prevalent time and also erred in not awarding addition towards future prospect. He has further submitted that the appellant was serving in Home Guard Department and due to paraplegia he is not able to work and at present is bedridden though the learned Tribunal has not properly awarded the compensation and meagre amount is p. 2 C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 awarded towards non pecuniary loss. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal. 5) Learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 – Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has properly awarded the compensation to the appellant. She has further submitted that the appellant was doing job as Homeguard and passbook is produced wherein Rs.8,208/- is transferred towards salary and hence once the salary is transferred question does not arise to consider more income than pleading or evidence on record. Further no evidence of future medical expenses and it is not permissible the amount is required to be pay or payable in the future on such amount even in case of enhancement interest is not permissible and interest is also not payable in respect of future medical expenditure, hence, she has requested not to allow interest on the aforesaid amount of future medical expenses and requested to dismiss the present appeal. She has relied on the judgment in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s Pest Control Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1995 SCC (1) 551. 6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on preponderance of probabilities. The claimant has tendered the p. 3 C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief at Exhibit 20, wherein, all the facts of the petition have been narrated and relied on the FIR at Exhibit 24, panchnama at Exhibit 25, charge-sheet at Exhibit 26, MLC at Exhibits 29 and 30, Injury Certificate at Exhibit 32, Disability Certificate at Exhibit 41. The complaint, charge-sheet and panchnama also corroborate the version of the appellant / claimant. The respondent no.2 has not examined driver or owner of the car nor produced any documentary or oral evidence to rebut the evidence of the claimant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has drawn adverse inference against the driver of the car and held sole negligent for causing the accident. The factum of accident, negligence and liability are not seriously disputed and only quantum part is challenged under this appeal. 7) Now coming to the quantum part, a perusal of record reveals that the appellant has pleaded his income as Rs.8,000/- per month by serving as a Home Guard but has not produced any appointment letter or salary slip issued by the Home Guard Unit even no witness has been examined from the Home Guard Unit. However, a perusal of copy of passbook at Exhibit 46, reveals that the appellant was receiving monthly amount in the range of Rs.6,996/- to Rs.8.208/- in his bank account and therefore the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month. It appears that the learned Tribunal has observed the age of claimant as 34 years at the time of accident and the learned p. 4 C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 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. 8) It is undisputed fact that to prove disablement of the claimant he has produced Disability Certificate at Exhibit 41 issued by Dr. M. M. Oza, wherein, he has assessed whole body permanent disability of 100% and the said certificate was admitted in the evidence by the other side. Further, the learned Tribunal has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, and considering the nature of work of the appellant and going through the medical records which reveals that the appellant has suffered paraplegia, as a result of which his lower body is totally paralyzed, the learned Tribunal has considered that the appellant would naturally have been prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions and would have affected his earning capacity and assessed 100% permanent disability of the appellant which is just and proper and does not require interference of this Court. 9) Further, considering the age of claimant as 34 years at the time of accident the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 16, 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] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, is just and proper and no interference p. 5 C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 of this Court is required. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,240/- towards transportation and Rs.3,77,800/- towards medical expenses are just and proper. 10) Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,200/- which comes to Rs.11,200/-. Now total income under the head of loss of future income is required to be considered as Rs.11,200/- x 12 x 16 x 100% / 100 = Rs.21,50,400/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.6,14,400/- towards future loss of income. Similarly, considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment and recovery, younger age and disablement of the claimant, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has committed error while awarding amount towards pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities as Rs.2,00,000/- which is required to be enhanced to Rs.3,50,000/- i.e. additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities, in view of the ratio laid down in the cases of K.S.Murlidhara Vs. R. Subbulakshmi, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 and Reshma Vs. Dajiba Krishna Lad and Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 1320. Further, considering the 100% disability of the injured and requirement of permanent attendant for the injured the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced in view of Reshma (supra) to Rs.5,00,000/- (i.e. additional p. 6 C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges.) 11) Learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 – Insurance Company has argued that no interest can be awarded for future medical expenditure. The said argument is not acceptable on the ground that said amount is invested in the deposit and from income of the interest, claimants shall have to maintain or incur medical expenses for routine and regular expenditure such income is required to be considered. As the Motor Vehicles Act is benevolent legislation the arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 is not acceptable. 12) As discussed above, the appellant – injured – original claimant is entitled to get compensation computed as under: Heads Awarded by Tribunal Reassessed by this Court Loss of future income Rs.15,36,000/- Rs.21,50,400/- including additional amount of Rs.6,14,400/- Pain, shock and suffering and Loss of Amenities of Life Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.3,50,000/- including additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- Special Diet and Attendance Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- including additional amount of Rs.4,00,000/- Transportation Rs.40,240/- Rs.40,240/- Medical Expenses Rs.3,77,800/- Rs.3,77,800/- Total compensation Rs.22,54,040/- Rs.34,18,440/- including total additional amount of Rs.11,64,400/- p. 7 C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 13) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274, has observed that 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 compensation than claimed, the amount of compensation more than the claimed amount can be awarded. 14) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.22,54,040/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.11,64,400/- (Rs.34,18,440/- - Rs.22,54,040/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 15) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 05.01.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar, in MAC Petition No.283 of 2019 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.11,64,400/- 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 p. 8 C/FA/2124/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 forthwith. 16) The learned Tribunal is directed that enhanced amount towards pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities, special diet and attendant charges be 100% deposited and to meet with regular expenditure, interest on said amount be given to the appellant – original claimant. 17) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 18) Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of. 19) Award to be drawn accordingly. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI p. 9