GHANSHYAMBHAI MAFATBHAI SUTHAR vs ASHOKBHAI ZULUBHAI PARMAR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3554/2013 (GJHC240401412013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3554 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GHANSHYAMBHAI MAFATBHAI SUTHAR
Versus
ASHOKBHAI ZULUBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,2.1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 31/08/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned
judgment and award dated 21.09.2013 passed by the Motor
th
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 6 Additional District Judge,
at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.165 of 2010,
whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,79,360/- as compensation
along with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts which led to the filing of the captioned
appeal are that on 25.07.2009, at about 03:00 hrs, the claimant-
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:37:29 IST 2026
C/FA/3554/2013 (GJHC240401412013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Ghanshyambhai Mafatbhai Suthar was going by driving his
Suzuki bearing registration No.GJ-7-S-7488. The claimant was
driving his Car at a moderate speed and on the correct side of
the road. When he reached at the place of the accident, the
original opponent No.1 had parked his Truck bearing
registration No.GJ-1-V-4332 in the middle of the road without
any indicator or reflector. Therefore, the claimant dashed with
the said truck from behind. As a result of the said accident, the
claimant sustained grievous injuries.
2.1. Having been served with the notice of the claim petition,
the opponent No.3- Insurance Company appeared and filed
Written Statement at Exhibit-24, thereby denying the averments
made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition. The learned Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the
opponent Nos.2 & 2 (A).
2.2. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, oral as well
as documentary evidence on record and the submissions
canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the learned
Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,79,360/- as compensation
along with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the appellant herein preferred the
captioned appeal on the ground of quantum.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:37:29 IST 2026
C/FA/3554/2013 (GJHC240401412013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
4. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted
that the appellant- Ghanshyambhai Mafatbhai Suthar was
gainfully engaged in M/s. S. E. Forge Private Limited as a
technician and there by earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The
salary slip of the appellant have been proved on record at
Exhibits-42 & 43. It is submitted that as per the salary slip the
gross monthly salary of the claimant was Rs.7,998/- and
Rs.80/- was deducted on account of professional tax. Therefore,
the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted only Rs.80/- for
assessing the income of the claimant/appellant. However, the
learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the claimant
Rs.4,200/- per month, which is at a lower side.
4.1. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted at the
time of accident, the claimant was aged about 33 years,
therefore, 40% of the monthly income ought to have been added
on account of future prospects of the of the claimant. In support
of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. , reported in
(2023) 3 SCC 439 . Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid
judgments, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
learned Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects
of the claimant.
4.2. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:37:29 IST 2026
C/FA/3554/2013 (GJHC240401412013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
the learned Tribunal had assessed the functional disability at
35%, which is not in dispute.
4.3. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that
the learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of
compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering,
special diet, attendant charges and transportation and actual
loss of income. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of
compensation under these heads.
5. Per contra , Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.3- Insurance Company submitted
that the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the monthly
income of the claimant. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal
had awarded just compensation under all the heads of
compensation, therefore, the captioned appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the
record, it is to be noted that the appellant has challenged the
impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
7. So far as quantum is concerned, it is not in dispute that at
the time of accident, the appellant was working with M/s S. E.
Forge Private Limited as a technician. The salary slip of the
claimant had been proved on record at Exhibits- 42 & 43. The
said salary slip would show that the gross salary of the claimant
was Rs.7,998/-. It further emerges from the record that Rs.80/-
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:37:29 IST 2026
C/FA/3554/2013 (GJHC240401412013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
is deducted on account of professional tax. Thus, after deducting
the amount of professional tax from the salary, the net salary of
the claimant would come to Rs.7,918/-. The income of the
claimant is reassessed at Rs.7,918/-.
8. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the
claimant was aged about 33 years, therefore, 40% of the monthly
income is added on account of future prospects of the claimant
in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi ( supra ) and Sidram ( supra ). Thus, after
adding 40% to the income, it would come to Rs.11,085/- i.e.
( 7,918 + 40% of 7,918). The learned Tribunal has assessed the
functional disability at 35%, which is not in dispute. Thus,
applying the multiplier of 16 as per the age of the claimant, the
future loss of income would come to Rs.7,44,960/- i.e. (11,085 x
35% x 12 x16).
9. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of
compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering and
special diet, attendant charges and transportation. It emerges
from the record that the claimant sustained grievous injuries
and thereafter, he was taken to Shree Krishna Hospital,
Karamsad Hospital, where he was treated as an indoor patient
as well as out-door patient. Thus, considering the nature of
injuries and having regard to the period of treatment, the
compensation awarded under these heads required to be
enhanced. Hence, the compensation awarded under the head of
pain, shock and suffering is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to
Rs.25,000/- and the compensation awarded under the head of
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:37:29 IST 2026
C/FA/3554/2013 (GJHC240401412013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
special diet, attendant charges and transportation is enhanced
from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.
10. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.47,800/-
under the head of medical expenses. The compensation awarded
under this head is not under challenge, therefore, the same does
not require any interference.
11. The learned Tribunal had awarded actual loss of income for
a period of four months. Now the income has been reassessed,
therefore, the appellant shall be entitled to get a sum of
Rs.31,672/- under the head of actual loss of income.
12. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimant/appellant shall be entitled for the following amount of
compensation under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future Loss of Income 7,44,960/-
Actual Loss of Income 31,672/-
Medical Expenses 47,800/-
Special Diet, Attendant Charges and
Transportation
15,000/-
Pain, Shock and Suffering 25,000/-
Total Compensation 8,64,432/-
Less- 20% Self Negligence 1,72,886/-
Total Compensation 6,91,546/-
Less: compensation already awarded by the
learned Tribunal
2,79,360/-
Additional amount of Compensation 4,12,186/-
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:37:29 IST 2026
C/FA/3554/2013 (GJHC240401412013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
13. In view of the above discussion, the claimant/appellant
shall be entitled for the total compensation of Rs.8,64,432/-. Out
of the total compensation 20% is deducted on account of self
negligence of the claimant. Therefore, the claimant shall be
entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,91,546/- i.e.,
(Rs.8,64,432/- - 20% of 8,64,432/-).
14. The learned Tribunal had already awarded a sum of
Rs.2,79,360/-. Therefore, the claimant/appellant shall be
entitled for the additional compensation of Rs. 4,12,186/- i. e.
(Rs.6,91,546/- - Rs.2,79,360/-). The learned Tribunal has
awarded the interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum, therefore,
the claimant/appellant shall also be entitled for the interest at
the rate of 8.5% on the additional amount of compensation.
15. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal
stands allowed partly. The impugned judgment and award is
modified to the aforesaid extent.
16. The respondent No.3- Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with the
interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition till its realization, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
17. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal
shall disburse the amount to the original claimant, after
deducting the deficit court fees, if any, and after due verification.
Statutory amount, if any, lying/deposited with the Registry of
this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:37:29 IST 2026
C/FA/3554/2013 (GJHC240401412013) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Tribunal forthwith.
18. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith.
19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 15:37:29 IST 2026