IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 403 of 2015 ========================================================== NURMOHAMMAD IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH Versus MAHERA LAKSHMANBHAI VAGHABHAI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 30/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 03.03.2014 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 302 of 2007 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Nadiad. By way of the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal was pleased to award a sum of Rs 1,73,400/- together with proportional costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization from the opponents. Furthermore, the opponents no. 1, 2 and 3 were held jointly liable towards the awarded amount. 2. The accident in question occurred on 13.05.2006 near Madhavpura within the limits of Kothamba Police Station. It appears that on the fateful day, the present Appellant(original claimant Noor Mohammad Ibrahimbhai Shiekh) was waiting with one of his friends by the side of the road when a truck bearing p. 1 registration no. GJ-01-TT-9224 came, being driven in a rash and negligent manner to the said place and hit the claimant as well as the friend, who was accompanying him. As a result, the Appellant suffered injuries for which, he received treatment and also preferred the present claim petition for compensation. 3. The present appeal is only confined to assailing the quantum of compensation awarded to the Appellant. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shushil R Shukla for the Appellant. He has submitted that the original claim petition was preferred claiming an amount to the tune of Rs 7,00,000/-. Such an amount was claimed for the reason that the Appellant was a person employed in country of Kuwait. It was submitted that the Appellant had a valid visa which is apparent from document Exh. 43- the passport of the said individual wherein, a residency visa appears on internal page no. 09. Relying on the said document it was submitted that the appellant’s visa was valid till 29.06.2006 and that at the relevant point of time, the appellant had visited India on the holidays. It was submitted that appellant was holding multiple entry visas and that therefore, he was scheduled to move back to Kuwait after the conclusion of his visit to India. It was submitted that he was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month doing tailoring work in Kuwait. He has taken this Court to the afÏdavit of examination-in-chief wherein the stand of the Appellant is that he was earning Rs. 35,000 per month/-. It was submitted, relying p. 2 on the said afÏdavit of the examination-in-chief Exh-23, that the Appellant had undergone a long period of treatment in the hospital and that he had suffered a disability of 16% in his body as a whole. It was submitted that despite continuing his occupation as a tailor, the Appellant has suffered a significant loss of efÏciency due to the leg injury and that the Court may enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal has only considered the monthly income of the Appellant as Rs 3,000/- per month. 5. Having heard the learned advocate, this Court proceeds to decide the present application in terms hereinbelow, notwithstanding the fact that the learned advocate for the respondent, i.e. learned advocate Ms. R.V. Acharya is on sick note. This is so as the appeal has scant merits and this Court, as such, is inclined to dismiss the Appeal. It appears that in order to buttress the assertion in the afÏdavit of examination-in-chief, namely, that the Appellant was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month, the learned advocate for the Appellant has not drawn attention of this Court to any document which indicates that for every month, the Appellant was earning Rs 35,000/-. Even the basic facts pertaining to the establishment that the Appellant was working with, has not been disclosed. Thus, it is not even clear if indeed the Appellant was working, and if so, earning his livelihood in which manner. Naturally, if the Appellant was working in Kuwait, he would have repatriated certain amounts to his family. Those banking details, of the contemporaneous p. 3 period, could have been easily produced by the Appellant before the Tribunal. On perusal of the Record and Proceedings, it transpires that at least from 30.07.2012 to 18.04.2013, adjournment applications have been filed in the Tribunal, allegedly to procure necessary documents and instructions. And all of this was after the conclusion of cross-examination of the Appellant on 01.05.2012. Thus, it is clear that the Appellant, despite ample opportunity has not bothered to adduce any document as regards his income before the Tribunal. Even before this Court, not even a feeble attempt has been made to show that such evidence exists. Therefore, the fact that Tribunal has relied on the usual standard of assessing notional income, for the purpose of deciding the income of the Appellant, was the only approach left with the Tribunal. In the circumstances this Court is not inclined to interfere in the monthly assessment of compensation of the Appellant. Furthermore, merely because the document Exh-43, the passport, indicated that the Appellant was scheduled to go back to Kuwait does not translate to his monthly income being Rs 35,000/- per month in Kuwait. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that the notional income of the Appellant be considered at Rs. 3,000/- per month, is sustainable. Again, the learned advocate does not dispute the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. 6. Insofar as disability is concerned, the learned advocate does not dispute the conclusion of the Tribunal to the extent that 16% partial disability for the body as a whole, which was p. 4 agreed to, between the parties. It is clear that the said disability has been considered by the concerned Court. Even the other heads of granting the compensation namely, Pain, Shock and Suffering has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs 10,000/-. This is also sustainable, more so, when the afÏdavit of the examination- in-chief does not spell anything as regards to the total period of hospitalization. It simply states that the period of hospitalization was “long”. Even on specific questions by this Court to the learned advocate for the Appellant, he has not been able to point out anything from the record, which would indicate the period of hospitalization of the Appellant. This would seriously prejudice the right of the other side to effectively cross-examination, more so when the afÏdavit of examination-in-chief, itself, is vague. Thus, assessment of compensation, under the head of “Pain, Shock and Suffering” is correctly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/-, that too, for an accident of the year 2006. Again, the medical expenditure, on the basis of the bills produced on record, has been awarded by the Tribunal, which the learned advocate for the Appellant does not dispute. Insofar as the compensation on account of Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Transportation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs 5,000/-; and for actual loss of two months, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,000/-. Now, in absence of any clarity on the period for which the Appellant was hospitalized, the Tribunal, has taken a liberal period of 2 months of hospitalization and has accordingly awarded the compensation under the head of Actual Loss of Income. Albeit, it may be noted that the Appellant was on a p. 5 vacation in India for the period around the accident. 7. In the circumstances this Court does not believe that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly the present appeal is liable to be rejected and is accordingly disposed of as rejected. (J. L. ODEDRA, J) ADITYA SINGH p. 6 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ADITYA SINGH(HC02376), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 31/01/2026 17:59:53