JAYDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAUHAN vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3925/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240654402025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3925 of 2025
==========================================================
JAYDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAUHAN
Versus
DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KEYA SHA, MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 15/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, ‘MV Act’), the appellant-claimant
has challenged the judgment and award dated 03.04.2005,
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Kheda at Kapadvanj (‘tribunal’, herein after), in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No. 214 of 2021 (Old MACP No. 532/2021),
whereby, the tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.6,95,810/- to the claimant and directed the opponent to pay
the said amount along with 7.5% interest, from the date of the
filing of the claim petition, till realization.
2. According to the claimant, on 23.10.2020, while he was
proceeding on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. GJ-07-CL-
8258, along with his friend, namely Dharamvirsinh Chauhan,
who was sitting as pillion-rider, and at about 10:45 p.m., when
they were passing through the place of accident, the driver of the
Opponent came driving ST Bus, bearing registration No. GJ-18-
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 11:57:18 IST 2026
C/FA/3925/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240654402025)
Z-1358, in rash and negligent manner and with excessive speed
from the wrong side and dashed with the motorcycle of the
appellant-claimant from front. Therefore, an FIR, bearing I-C.R.
No. 999/2020, also came to be lodged with Kathlal Police
Station.
2.1 As a result of the accident, the appellant-claimant had to
undergo prolonged treatment. The appellant-claimant further
claimed that he was earning Rs.8500/- per month by doing
agricultural work and he was 20 years of age and was hale and
hearty. Thereby, the appellant-claimant, filed the claim petition
under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking total compensation of
Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest and proportionate costs.
2.2 After the service of notice on the opponent, the Opponent
appeared through its learned advocate and filed written-
statement vide Exhibit-37. Thereafter, the tribunal framed the
issues vide Exhibit-10 and after appreciating the evidence on
record, passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the
present appeal.
3. Learned advocate, Mr. Bhalodi, appearing for the
appellant-claimant made three fold submissions;
i. Firstly, he submitted that the tribunal committed a
serious error in attributing 30% contributory negligence
on the part of the appellant-claimant in causing the road
accident. He submitted that considering the nature of the
accident, where, two vehicles were involved in the road
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 11:57:18 IST 2026
C/FA/3925/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240654402025)
accident, i.e. motorcycle and ST Bus, and ST bus being a
bigger vehicle, driver of the Opponent was supposed to
drive it more carefully;
ii. Secondly, it was submitted that the tribunal assessed
the monthly income of the appellant-claimant at
Rs.6,500/- and in fact, it ought to have taken the
minimum wages for a skilled worker prevailing at the time
of accident within the State of Gujarat;
iii. Thirdly, as the tribunal accepted physical impairment
at 35% of the body as a whole, it ought to have awarded
compensation towards loss of prospective or future
income;
3.2 Lastly, it was submitted that, despite the fact that the
appellant-claimant had to undergo prolonged medical treatment,
the tribunal awarded meager amount under the head of pain,
shock and suffering, i.e. Rs.10,000/- and therefore, the same is
required to be enhanced.
3.3 By making the above submissions, it was prayed that this
appel be allowed.
4. Learned advocate, Ms. Shah, appearing for learned
advocate, Ms. Mandavia, for the opponent, while supporting the
impugned judgment and award, would submit that the
appellant-claimant, in his cross-examination, admitted that he
was driving the motorcycle with excessive speed and that he was
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 11:57:18 IST 2026
C/FA/3925/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240654402025)
not having valid and effective driving license and he was also not
wearing helmet. She, further, submitted that according to the
admission of the appellant-claimant he had seen ST bus form a
distance of about 40-50 feet. She submitted that the driver of the
ST bus had entered into the witness box as DW-1, Exhibit-38,
and had explained the manner in which the alleged accident had
taken place. It was submitted that the assertions made by the
driver of the ST bus in his examination-in-chief were not
challenged by way of cross-examination by the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant-claimant before the
tribunal. Under the circumstances, she submitted to maintain
the ratio of contributory negligence attributed by the tribunal.
She also supported the impugned judgment and award on the
quantum and submitted that, in absence of any proof, the
tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income of the appellant-
claimant at Rs.6500/- per month and rightly awarded the
compensation.
4.1 By making the above submissions, she prayed to dismiss
this appeal.
5. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the
learned advocates for the parties and having perused the
impugned judgment and award as well as the evidence on
record, the argument advanced by learned advocate, Mr.
Bhalodi, that the tribunal wrongly attributed 30% negligence on
the part of the appellant-claimant cannot be accepted for the
simple reason that the appellant-claimant gave his deposition
vide Exhibit-13 and during his cross-examination, he admitted
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 11:57:18 IST 2026
C/FA/3925/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240654402025)
that he does not possess valid and effective driving license and
that on the date of the alleged accident, as he had to reach
college, driving motorcycle at excessive speed and he was not
wearing helmet. The appellant-claimant had also admitted that
they were traveling on a straight road and that he had seen the
ST bus from a distance of about 40-50 feet and that his
motorcycle was damaged from the front. He showed ignorance,
whether a tempo, loaded with woods, was standing near the
place of accident.
5.1 The driver of Opponent had also entered into the witness-
box and in his evidence, Exhibit-38, he stated that the appellant-
claimant lost control of his motorcycle and dashed with the front
portion of the bus. He also stated that, though, he was driving
ST bus at moderate speed FIR and charge-sheet was filed against
him. In his cross-examination, ST driver was asked by the
learned advocate for the claimant that charge-sheet is filed
against him or not and that is the quality of cross-examination
that was done on behalf of the appellant-claimant. However, the
ST bus driver denied the suggestions that he was driving the bus
with excessive speed and in negligent manner and dashed the
same with the motorcycle of the appellant-claimant. He had also
stated that after leaving railway crossing, it is a four line road
with divider.
5.2 While going through the police papers, i.e. FIR, charge-
sheet etc., of the road accident, it appears that the investigation
was carried out against the driver of ST bus. In Paragraph-9.1 of
the impugned judgment and order, the tribunal has discussed,
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 11:57:18 IST 2026
C/FA/3925/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240654402025)
in detail, the evidence on record and has attributed 30%
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, i.e. the
appellant-claimant, and 70% on the part of the driver of the ST
bus and I find no fault with the findings arrived at by the
tribunal and the same is confirmed to that extent.
5.3 In the case of Hitesh Nagibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai
Nagjibhai Rabari ’, reported in 2025 INSC 1070 , the Apex
Court has laid down that in absence of any proof with regard to
income, the minimum daily-wages for a skilled worker prevailing
at the time of accident is required to be taken into consideration.
In the case on hand the accident took place on 23.10.2010 and
therefore, the minimum daily-wages prevailing at the relevant
point of time being Rs.9087/-, the tribunal ought to have taken
into consideration Rs.9087/- as the monthly wages and the
same is taken as monthly income of the appellant-claimant.
5.4 Further, the disability certificates produced at Exhibit-32
and issued by Dr. Yoesh Parikh, M.S. (Ortho), indicates that the
appellant-claimant sustained permanent physical impairment to
the extent of 37% of the body as a whole, whereas, the disability
certificate, Exhibit-33, issued by Dr. Supreet Prabhu, M.S.
(E.N.T.), indicates that the appellant-claimant sustained
permanent physical impairment to the extent of 30% of the body
as a whole. Since, the appellant-claimant agreed to accept
permanent physical impairment to the extent of 35% of the body
as a whole, the tribunal adopted the same as the disability and
therefore, considering the age of the appellant-claimant at the
time of accident, i.e. 21 years, the tribunal ought to have granted
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 11:57:18 IST 2026
C/FA/3925/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240654402025)
40% towards the loss of future / prospective income.
Considering the young age of the appellant-claimant, the
tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18, as per the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others’ ,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Despite the appellant-claimant
having undergone prolonged medical treatment, the tribunal
awarded a meager sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and
suffering and therefore, the same is required to be enhanced to
Rs.25,000/-. Since, the interest awarded by the tribunal, i.e.
7.5% per annum, is just and proper, the same is maintained.
5.5 Thus, the recalculated amount of compensation shall be as
under;
Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by the High
Tribunal
Court
Income Rs.6500 X 35% =
Rs.9079 + 40%
Rs.2275 X 12 X 18
=Rs.12,711 X 40%
Future Loss Rs.4,91,400/- Rs.9,60,984/-
Medical Expenditure Rs.4,69,700/- Rs.4,69,700/-
Pain, Shock &
Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/-
Suffering
Transportation,
Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Special Diet &
Attendant Charges
Actual Loss Rs.13,100/- Rs.18158/-
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 11:57:18 IST 2026
C/FA/3925/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240654402025)
Total
Rs.9,94,100/-
Rs.14,83,842/-
30% Negligence
- Rs.2,98,230/-
Rs.4,45,152/-
Amount Awarded by
Rs.6,95,870/-
Rs.10,36,690/-
the Tribunal
- Rs.6,95,870/-
Rs.3,42,820/-
Enhanced Amount
of Compensation
6. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed . The judgment
and award dated 03.04.2005, passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Kapadvanj (‘tribunal’,
herein after), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 214 of 2021
(Old MACP No. 532/2021) is modified to the extent that the
appellant-claimant shall be entitled to additional compensation
of Rs.3,42,820/-, along with 7.5% simple interest from the date
of the filing of the claim petition, till realization. The Opponent -
GSRTC is directed to satisfy the judgment and award and to
deposit the additional amount of compensation with the
concerned Tribunal within the period of eight weeks , from
today. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall
disburse the entire amount in favour of the appellant-claimant
through NEFT / RTGS, after due verification and if required, by
passing the fresh order for disbursement. R&P, if any, be sent
back to the concerned tribunal, forthwith. Direct service is
permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 11:57:18 IST 2026