KARSAN JETHABHAI MEGHANI vs DAUD HUISEN LANGA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/377/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416962015)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 of 2015
==========================================================
KARSAN JETHABHAI MEGHANI
Versus
DAUD HUISEN LANGA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA for MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant No. 1
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 26/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The occurrence of an accident on 6.8.2000 between
a two wheeler driven by the claimant and a bus is not in
dispute. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered
an head injury in the form of a brain hemorrhage, which
has resulted in permanent disability.
2. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence has
come to the conclusion that both, the claimant as well as
the driver of the bus, were responsible for the accident. It
has attributed negligence in the ratio of 75:25. As far as
compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has found that
the claimant was earning 15,172 pounds per annum and
it has proceeded to assess the disability at 10% and it has
awarded a sum of Rs.13,49,400/- towards future loss of
income and ultimately, awarded a total sum of
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:18 IST 2026
C/FA/377/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416962015)
Rs.16,53,700/-.
3. The insurer of the bus has accepted the award.
4. The claimant, being aggrieved of the attribution of
negligence and also on the quantum, is in appeal.
5. As far as negligence is concerned, it is not in dispute
that on a complaint being lodged, an FIR was registered
against the driver of the bus. The evidence does not
indicate regarding the laying of a charge-sheet against
the driver of the bus, however the driver of the bus did
not examine himself to indicate in what manner the
claimant had contributed to the accident. The claim of the
claimant was that the accident occurred when the driver
of the bus was trying to overtake another truck and in
order to do so, he collided with the two-wheeler, which
the claimant was driving. Since this assertion has
remained unchallenged by the driver of the bus, the same
will have to be accepted in its entirety.
6. It is also to be noticed here that in an accident
involving a two-wheeler, such as a Luna, with a bus,
which is a larger vehicle, the negligence is normally
attributed to the larger vehicle, i.e. the bus. In this case,
the driver of the bus sitting at a higher position would be
in a position to have a clear view of the entire road and,
therefore, the possibility of the two-wheeler contributing
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:18 IST 2026
C/FA/377/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416962015)
to the accident would be remote. We are, therefore, of the
view that the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant had
contributed to the extent of 75% cannot be accepted and
the same is set aside. We, consequently, hold that the
driver of the bus alone was responsible for the accident.
7. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
the medical evidence indicates that the claimant had
suffered a brain hemorrhage as a result of the accident.
The evidence also indicates that he had balance problems
and had post-traumatic vestibular syndrome. The letter of
the doctor, who treated the claimant on his return to UK,
indicates that the MRI scan revealed a brain hemorrhage
and he was having a post-traumatic mild frontal
syndrome, hearing loss, vestibular syndrome and memory
loss. It is also stated that his speech had been affected
and his memory problem was getting worse and had been
referred to a neurologist. This certificate, in fact, is dated
18.3.2002, i.e. nearly two years after the accident.
8. Furthermore, the letter of the employer IKEA dated
20.2.2002 is also produced, which indicates that the
claimant had been absent from work for 18 months due to
a road accident, which was causing him dizzy spells and
imbalance. There is also a dismissal letter dated
21.1.2005 issued by IKEA stating that the claimant was in
employment from 9.2.1998 to 28.11.2002 and he had
been medically dismissed due to his long-term illness. The
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:18 IST 2026
C/FA/377/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416962015)
certificates given by the Social Security and Statutory
Sick Pay authorities of UK have recorded that the
claimant was unfit to work for more than a year due to
head injury and loss of balance. These documents when
read cumulatively clearly indicate that even after a period
of two years from the accident, the claimant was suffering
from serious problems, such as loss of balance rendering
him unable to work. In fact, the certificates indicate that
he was asked to refrain from work for more than a year.
All these factors would, therefore, clearly indicate that
the effect of the injuries was long-term and was
debilitating, which ultimately led him to lose his job. We
are, therefore, inclined to hold that the claimant has
suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 50% as
against the 10% assessed by the Tribunal.
9. As regards the income is concerned, the Tribunal on
the basis of the income tax returns filed in the UK has
come to the conclusion that the claimant was earning a
sum of £ 15,172. We find no reason to disturb this finding.
Since we have held that the claimant has suffered a
permanent disability to the extent of 50%, he would be
entitled to an income of £ 7,586 would be the sum to be
computed for the purpose of calculating loss of future
income.
10. As the claimant was aged about 48 years, a
multiplier of 13 would have to be applied and in the line
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:18 IST 2026
C/FA/377/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416962015)
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , i.e. 25% would have
to be added as future prospects. In all, the claimant
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.84,34,751/- towards the
loss of future income.
11. The evidence on record indicates that the claimant
was not able to work for a period of two years. As a result
of this, he has lost a salary of about Rs.2.5 lakhs per year.
In the light of this evidence, notwithstanding the fact that
he did not work for two years and was earning £ 15,000,
it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5 lakhs
towards loss of actual income.
12. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,500/- towards
medical expenses. Since this amount is based on
documentary evidence, the same is maintained. The
Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards cancellation
charges for the flight tickets that he had already
purchased to travel to UK. The same is also affirmed.
Similarly the Rs.60,000/- awarded for the journey
expenses of the claimant's wife and son is also affirmed.
The sum Rs.20,000/- awarded towards attendant and
transportation charges, being just and proper, is also
maintained.
13. The Tribunal has determined the conversion rate of
the pound at Rs.68.42, i.e. the value of the pound
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:18 IST 2026
C/FA/377/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416962015)
prevailing as on the date of the accident. This finding is
also affirmed.
14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh
towards pain shock and suffering. In our view, it would be
appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards pain
shock and sufferings and also loss of amenities. In all, the
claimant would be entitled to the following sums:
Income
£ 15,172
Future Rise (25%)
£ 3,793
Total
£ 18.965
Disability (50%)
£ 9,482
Conversion Rate (Rs.68.42) Rs.6,48,827/-
Multiplier X 13
Total Rs.84,34,751/-
Medical Expenses Rs.5,500/-
Ticket Cancellation Rs.15,000/-
Traveling Expenses Rs.60,000/-
Attendant Charges Rs.20,000/-
Pain, Shock, Sufferings Rs.1,00,000/-
Actual Loss of Income Rs.5,00,000/-
Grand Total Rs.91,29,761/-
Tribunal awarded Amount Rs.04,13,425/-
Enhanced Compensation Rs.87,16,326/-
15. The appeal is hereby ALLOWED TO THE
AFORESAID EXTENT . The claimant is entitled to an
additional sum of Rs.87,16,326/- with 7.5% interest
from the date of the claim petition filed by the claimant
before the Tribunal till its realization. The enhanced
amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:18 IST 2026
C/FA/377/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240416962015)
within a period of TEN weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
16. The enhanced amount which shall be deposited
pursuant to this order shall be disbursed to the claimant
upon proper verification by NEFT / RTGS.
17. R & P if called for, be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 29 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 14:05:18 IST 2026