DARIYABEN RAMSINH PARMAR vs SANJAY SITARAM PHALORH
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/837/2016 (GJHC240422762016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 837 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DARIYABEN RAMSINH PARMAR
Versus
SANJAY SITARAM PHALORH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
==========================================================
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 30.01.2016 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.517 of 2011, whereby the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.1,76,600/- 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 16.01.2011, the claimant- Dariyaben
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:01 IST 2026
C/FA/837/2016 (GJHC240422762016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Ramsinh Parmar was travelling as a passenger in a Rickshaw
bearing registration No.GJ-1-CT-8632 and going to Ahmedabad.
When he reached at the place of accident, the driver of the
Maruti Car bearing registration No.GJ-1-HB-1287 came driving
the Car at excessive speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and
dashed into the Rickshaw of the claimant 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 Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 appeared and filed their reply,
thereby denying the averments made in the claim petition and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
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.1,76,600/- 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.
4. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:01 IST 2026
C/FA/837/2016 (GJHC240422762016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
that at the time of accident, the appellant was working as a
labourer and apart from that she was also a homemaker. The
learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the claimant at
Rs.3,000/- per month, which is at a lower side. It is submitted
that the income of the claimant could not be proved on record by
leading the cogent evidence. Therefore, in the absence of cogent
evidence of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident.
4.1. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that
the learned Tribunal had not considered the future prospects of
the claimant. It is submitted that, at the time of accident, the
appellant was aged about 52 years, therefore, 10% of the
monthly income ought to have been added on account of future
prospects 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 .
4.2. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that
the learned Tribunal had assessed the functional disability at
30%, which is at a lower side. The claimant had examined Dr.
Nirav Prajapati, who issued the disability certificate. He proved
on record that the functional disability of the claimant at 54%
body as a whole, however, the learned Tribunal had assessed the
functional disability at 30%.
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:01 IST 2026
C/FA/837/2016 (GJHC240422762016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
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. G. C. Mazmudar and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 &
5- Insurance Companies respectively, submitted that the income
of the claimant could not be proved on record by leading the
cogent evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly
assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per
month. They further submitted that the learned Tribunal had
rightly appreciated the medical evidence on record and assessed
the functional disability of the claimant at 30%. They further
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 the quantum is concerned, it is not in dispute
that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 52
years, engaged as a labourer, and apart from the said work, she
was a homemaker. After considering the evidence on record, the
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:01 IST 2026
C/FA/837/2016 (GJHC240422762016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the claimant at
Rs.3,000/- per month. The accident in question took place on
16.01.2011. At the relevant point of time, the minimum wages
for the skilled worker was Rs.4,710/-. Thus, considering the
nature of occupation and having regard to the fact that apart
from doing the labour work, the claimant was also a homemaker,
therefore, the income of the claimant is reassessed at Rs.5,000/-
per month.
8. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the
claimant was aged about 52 years, therefore, in view of the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
( supra ) and Sidram ( supra ), 10% of the monthly income is to be
added on account of future prospects of the claimant. Thus, after
adding 10% to the income, it would come to Rs.5,500/- i.e.
(5,000 + 10% of 5,000).
9. It emerges from the record that the learned Tribunal had
assessed the functional disability at 30% body as a whole. It also
emerges from the record that the claimant has sustained the
multiple fractures injuries in the said accident. The medical
evidence on record would show that the claimant sustained
injuries on her right thigh and right wrist. She also sustained a
fracture of the shaft femur on the right side and a fracture of the
distal end radius on the right side. The disability certificate
proved at Exhibit-47 would show that the claimant has difficulty
in walking long distances, running, and climbing stairs without
a banister. She also had difficulty in sitting cross-legged,
squatting and kneeling. She also had difficulty in lifting her right
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:01 IST 2026
C/FA/837/2016 (GJHC240422762016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
hand above her shoulder. Thus, considering the nature of
disability suffered by the claimant owing to the injuries
sustained by the claimant in the vehicular accident, I am of the
considered view that the learned Tribunal had assessed the
functional disability at a lower side. Therefore, the functional
disability of the claimant is reassessed at 35%. Thus, applying
the multiplier of 11 as per the age of the claimant, the future
loss of income would come to Rs.2,54,100/- i.e. (5,500 x 35% x
12 x 11).
10. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of
compensation under the heads of pain, shock and suffering and
special diet, attendant charges and transportation. It is not in
dispute that the claimant has sustained multiple fractures in the
vehicular accident. It emerges from the record that the claimant
remained hospitalized for a considerable time and thereafter, she
received treatment as an out-door patient. During that period,
she might have suffered a lot of pain and mental agony and she
also spend a substantial amount of special diet. Thus,
considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the
compensation awarded under the head of pain, shock and
suffering is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and the
compensation awarded under the head of special diet, attendant
charges and transportation is enhanced from Rs.8,000/- to
Rs.20,000/-.
11. The learned Tribunal had awarded the actual loss of
income for a period of three months. Thus, considering the
nature of injuries, the actual loss of income is required to be
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:01 IST 2026
C/FA/837/2016 (GJHC240422762016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
awarded for a period of four months. Hence, a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (5,000 x 4) is awarded under the head of actual loss
of income.
12. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,809/-
under the head of medical expenses. The compensation awarded
under this head is not under challenge, therefore, the same does
not require any interference.
13. 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 2,54,100/-
Actual Loss of Income 20,000/-
Medical Expenses 25,809/-
Special Diet, Attendant Charges and
Transportation
20,000/-
Pain, Shock and Suffering 30,000/-
Total Compensation 3,49,909/-
Less: compensation already awarded by the
learned Tribunal
1,76,600/-
Additional amount of Compensation 1,73,309/-
14. The learned Tribunal had already awarded a sum of
Rs.1,76,600/-. Therefore, the claimant/appellant shall be
entitled for the additional compensation of Rs. 1,73,309/- i.e.
(Rs.3,49,909/- - Rs.1,76,600/-). 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
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:01 IST 2026
C/FA/837/2016 (GJHC240422762016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
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 Nos.3 & 5- Insurance Companies are
directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation along
with the interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum, in the ratio
determined by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing of the
claim petition till its realization, within six weeks from the date
of receipt of a 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
Tribunal forthwith.
18. R & P, if any, be sent 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 Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 17:49:01 IST 2026