SOHILBHAI MOHAMMADBHAI SAIYAD vs YUVRAJSINH BALVANTSINH GOHIL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2177/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240432372016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2177 of 2016
==================================================
SOHILBHAI MOHAMMADBHAI SAIYAD
Versus
YUVRAJSINH BALVANTSINH GOHIL & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance :
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 02/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
[1] The occurrence of an accident on 14.11.2012, when the
claimant was travelling in a Bolero car, is not in dispute. As a
result of the accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries
which, according to him, resulted in 100% disability. He,
therefore, filed a claim petition seeking compensation.
[2] The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, came to
the conclusion that the accident had occurred and the insurer of
the car was liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal ultimately
awarded a sum of Rs.11,99,300/-.
[3] In awarding the said sum, the Tribunal has assessed the
medical disability at 50% and the monthly income at Rs.5,000/-.
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 11:40:56 IST 2026
C/FA/2177/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240432372016)
[4] Being aggrieved by the assessment of disability and
monthly income, the present appeal is preferred by the
claimant.
[5] The medical certificates produced by the claimant do
indicate that he had suffered disability to the extent of 100%.
The medical certificates also indicate that the claimant had
become a paraplegic.
[6] The Tribunal has, however, considered the deposition of
the doctor who deposed before the Court on behalf of the
hospital which the claimant was treated and who had been
summoned to produce the medical records. Since the said
doctor had indicated that the claimant could recover and do
computer work, the disability has been assessed at 50% by the
Tribunal.
[7] The discharge summary of Sterling Hospital, where the
claimant was admitted, treated and operated upon, has been
produced. The discharge summary of 04.12.2012 indicates as
follows:-
“CONDITION AT TIME OF DISCHARGE
Hemodynamically stable, afebrile, maintaining SPO2 in room air,
no tachypnoea with parapegia persisting appreciating bladder
sensation and passive joint movement in toes B/L, appreciate
coarse touch sensation in both lower limbs.
Dorsal wound healing well with no signs of infection
ADVICE ON DISCHARGE”
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 11:40:56 IST 2026
C/FA/2177/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240432372016)
[8] As could be seen from the above, the medical certificate
indicates that the claimant had become paraplegic and his
bladder sensation and passive join movement were improving
and he had only a coarse touch sensation in both the lower
limbs. In view of this discharge summary, it is obvious that the
claimant would have lost the use of both his lower limbs and
there were incidental problems relating to his bladder.
[9] It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 25
years as on the date of the accident. If a young person aged
about 25 years suffers paraplegia, it is obvious that his liability
to earn a livelihood is eliminated. We are, therefore, of the view
that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability at 100%,
as certified by the doctors, and could not have relied upon the
deposition of the doctor who had been summoned to produce
the records to arrive at the figure of 50%.
[10] As far as the income is concerned, the Tribunal has
assessed the income at Rs.5,000/-, obviously on the basis of
statement made in the claim petition that the claimant was
earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- at the time of the accident.
[11] Learned counsel for the claimant points out that the
claimant was the holder of a Bachelor's degree in Arts, a
Master's degree in Arts, and had also secured certificates
regarding career development issued by the University of
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 11:40:56 IST 2026
C/FA/2177/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240432372016)
Roehampton. He also points out that at the time of the accident,
the claimant was studying in second year LL.B.
[12] In our view, since the claimant was still studying and was
not only a Master's degree holder but was also pursuing his law
degree, the income that he was earning as on that date, i.e., as
a student cannot be the true yardstick. Having regard to the
educational qualifications of the claimant, we deem it
appropriate to assess his monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. As the
claimant was aged 25 years, a multiplier of 18 would have to be
applied, and consequently towards loss of future income, the
claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.28,56,000/- including
future prospects at the rate of 40%.
[13] The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,84,300/- towards
medical expenses. As this is based on documentary evidence,
the same is affirmed. Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and
special diet is awarded. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. In our view, since the
claimant has suffered paraplegia, it would be appropriate to
award a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakh towards pain and suffering. The
Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of amenities. In
our view, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs
towards loss of amenities.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 11:40:56 IST 2026
C/FA/2177/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240432372016)
[14] Since the evidence on record indicates that the claimant
has become a paraplegic, it is obvious that he would require the
services of an attendant throughout his life. In that view of the
matter, it would be appropriate to award a lump-sum
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs in this regard.
[15] In substitution of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant
would be entitled to the following sums:-
Income (10,000 x 12) Rs.1,20,000/-
Prospective Income (40%) Rs.48,000/-
Total Rs.1,68,000/-
Disability 100%
Total Rs.1,68,000/-
Multiplier X 17
Total Rs.28,56,000/-
Actual loss ---
Pain, Shock & Suffering Rs.2,50,000/-
Attendant charge Rs.5,00,000/-
Special Diet, Transport Rs.25,000/-
Loss of Amenity Rs.5,00,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs.5,84,300/-
Total Rs.47,15,300/-
Awarded Rs.11,99,300/-
Additional Compensation Rs.35,16,000/-
[16] The appeal is hereby partly allowed. The claimants are
entitled to an additional sum of Rs.35,16,000/- with 9% interest
from the date of the claim petition filed by the claimants before
the Tribunal till its realization. The enhanced amount shall be
deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of TEN
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 11:40:56 IST 2026
C/FA/2177/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240432372016)
[17] The enhanced amount which shall be deposited by the
Insurance Company pursuant to this order shall be disbursed to
the claimants upon proper verification by NEFT / RTGS.
[18] R & P if called for, be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 11:40:56 IST 2026