VIKRAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI KALIYA THROUGH WIFE vs BHAGVANBHAI KARSHANBHAI GOHIL

C/FA/1755/2013 (GJHC240394302013) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1755 of 2013
==========================================================
VIKRAMBHAI GORDHANBHAI KALIYA THROUGH WIFE
Versus
BHAGVANBHAI KARSHANBHAI GOHIL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HENIL SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MASUMI NANAVATI for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 02/09/2026

JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by judgment and
award dated 11th June, 2012, passed in MACP No. 921 of
2007, whereby the learned Tribunal granted total
compensation of Rs.7,96,600/- together with interest @ 7.5
p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
2. The claimant was riding a Hero Honda motorcycle
bearing registration number GJ-4-B-4509, travelling from
Tana to Chogath along with his wife as pillion rider. When
they reached near ST Bus Stand, Sihor, on the Bhavnagar
Rajkot highway, a tractor bearing registration number GJ-4-H-
6920 coming from the opposite direction, collided head-on
with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, both the
claimant and the pillion rider (the claimant's wife) were
seriously injured. The FIR of the incident was registered at
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 15:38:13 IST 2026

C/FA/1755/2013 (GJHC240394302013) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Sihor Police Station against the driver of the tractor.
2.1 Thereafter, the claimant has filed aforestated MACP
before the learned Tribunal.
2.2 Original opponents being served, appeared and filed
common written statement at Exh.24 and have admitted the
accident and involvement of offending vehicle in it.
2.3 The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on
record, assessed 70% - 30% inter se negligency i.e. 30% to
the claimant and passed the impugned judgment and award
as aforesaid.
2.4 Hence, present First Appeal.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. The appeal was pressed on two grounds:
(I) That the learned Tribunal committed a serious
error in assessing contributory negligence and in
attributing 30% negligence to the claimant without
properly assessing the evidence on record?
(II) That the learned Tribunal committed a serious
error in accepting the medical disability assessed by
the treating doctor without assessing the claimant's
functional disability, in not granting compensation for
loss of future prospects, and in not granting
compensation under other non-pecuniary heads?
5. Whereas, learned advocate for the insurance company,
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 15:38:13 IST 2026

C/FA/1755/2013 (GJHC240394302013) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
in response, supported the impugned judgment.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the parties, at
the outset, let me address first issue of contributory
negligency.
7. To be noted that the learned Tribunal, in assessing
contributory negligence, was swayed merely by the fact that
the accident was a head-on-collision, without correctly
assessing the evidence on record. Opponent No. 1, the driver
of the tractor, was not stepped into the witness box to rebut
the allegations levelled against him. Moreover, the FIR of the
incident was recorded against opponent No.1, and that a
charge sheet had been filed against him. Thus, the facts
prima facie, went to establish contributory negligence against
Opponent No. 1 rather than the claimant.
8. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reena
Versus Managing Director, Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation, 2026 INSC 889 , addressed the
issue in para 21 as under:-
“21. The following principles can be laid out from
the above judgments:
A. Charge Sheet creates a prima facie case of
negligence.
B. Criminal acquittals do not displace this
prima facie civil liability.
C. Scene sketches showing post-impact vehicle
positions cannot be used to infer contributory
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 15:38:13 IST 2026

C/FA/1755/2013 (GJHC240394302013) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
negligence against smaller vehicles.
D. High Courts cannot summarily overturn
MACT Awards without meeting the standard of
preponderance of probability in civil cases.”
8.1 In Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
the the Charge Sheet points towards prima facie driver
complicity in causing road accident.
8.2 In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rajani Sahoo & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 599 , the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that police investigation records, including the FIR
and final Charge-Sheet, constitute valid, admissible, and
reliable prima facie evidence to establish rash and negligent
driving in MACT proceedings.
9. In view of above, according to this Court, the learned
Tribunal had erred in assessing the road accident claim
without assessing the evidence on record, and had drawn an
adverse inference of 30% contributory negligence against the
claimant based only on the fact that the accident was a head-
on collision. The FIR and charge sheet at Exh.49 has been
totally ignored. In view of above binding precedents, in
absence of any rebuttal evidence by the tractor driver, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant could not
be held contributory negligent in causing the accident, and
thus, needs to be reversed the Tribunal's finding attributing
30% contributory negligence to the claimant.
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 15:38:13 IST 2026

C/FA/1755/2013 (GJHC240394302013) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
10. Dr. Dijesh Shah, a consultant neurologist and spinal
surgeon who treated the claimant over a long inpatient
period, issued a disability certificate at Exh. 56, recording that
the injury sustained by the claimant to the skull resulted in a
grave and permanent condition with consequent insanity,
paralysis, epileptic attacks, loss of special senses, grave
neuropathy, and emotional impairment. The doctor, who
assessed and supports the disability of the claimant, entered
into witness box and his deposition was recorded at Exh.55
and thus, proved the contention of the disability certificate as
it is. The injuries recorded in the disability certificate read as
under:-
“1) Vehicular accident & Head injury on date
05/09/07.He was unconscious.
He was treated for head injury. CT SCAN (BRAIN):
Plain CT scan of head and brain was performed.
There is evidence of Haemorrhagic contusion in right
frontal region. There is evidence of small surface
contusion in right perisylvian parietal region with
minimal SAH.There is evidence of hypodense fluid
leveling in right maxillary & sphenoid sinus.
Ventricular system and cisternal spaces appears
normal limits. There is no of midline structures.
Cerebellar hemispheres and brain- stem structure
appears normal.Bone window does not reveal any
fracture.
MRI REPORT BRAIN :- Haemorrhagic contusions in
right fronto-temporo-parietal region with
pericontusional oedema with mild compression of
right lateral ventricle Mild oedema in body and genu
of corpus callosum. Fluid leveling in hemosinus
which is hypointense on T2W and FLAIR and
isointense on T1W (Hemosinus-Subacute)
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 15:38:13 IST 2026

C/FA/1755/2013 (GJHC240394302013) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Identification mark: A Mole on left side of face lateral
to eyebrow..
At present he has complain of
1) Unable to walk.
2) Unable to feed himself
3) Irritability
4) Unable to go to toilet himself & passes urine
involuntarily.
5) Tremors of head & body.”
11. Apt to note that having regard to the claimant's inability
to undertake any work without assistance as a consequence of
the aftermath of his injuries, it was incorrect to equate the
assessed physical disability of 70% with his functional
disability. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
case of M.Paramesh Versus Vrl Logistics Ltd., 2026 INSC
655, in which the Supreme Court held that restricting
economic loss to a percentage based purely on physical
disability is unjustifiable, the Court held that the claimant's
functional disability, and consequently his economic loss,
must be assessed at 100%. Therefore, I assess the claimant's
economic loss/functional disability at 100%, holding that the
claimant could not undertake any economic activity as a
consequence of the aftermath of his injuries.
12. On the question of income, the Court noted that the
claimant had led no evidence of his income on the date of the
accident, and that both parties accepted before the Court that
the claimant was 26 years old at the time of the accident and
therefore, appropriate multiplier is 17.
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 15:38:13 IST 2026

C/FA/1755/2013 (GJHC240394302013) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
12.1 In view of aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of M.Paramesh (supra), future prospect is
also required to be granted.
12.2 The medical bills of Rs. 1,65,000/- produced by the
claimant had rightly been granted, and found no reason to
interfere with this finding.
12.3 The compensation under the head of pain, shock,
and suffering is assessed at Rs. 50,000/-, having regard to the
evidence that the claimant was hospitalized for a long period,
underwent intensive treatment in a government hospital and a
private nursing home, and required further treatment at other
hospitals even after discharge.
12.4 To be noted that that, since the claimant's
disability had been assessed at 100%, no separate
compensation could be granted for actual loss of income;
however, for loss of amenities, having regard to the claimant's
age (26 years) and the grave and permanent nature of his
disability, compensation under this head be doubled to Rs.
1,00,000/-.
12.5 The rate of interest granted by the learned
Tribunal is maintained.
12.6 Therefore, total compensation would be as under,
which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 15:38:13 IST 2026

C/FA/1755/2013 (GJHC240394302013) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income (100% disability) 8,56,800/-
Pain, shock and suffering 1,00,000/-
Medical expenses 1,65,000/-
Special diet, attendant charges,
60,000/-
transportation & prosthetic leg
Loss of amenities 1,00,000/-
Total… 12,81,800/-
Less : Amount which is already awarded 7,96,000/-
Additional amount which is awarded 4,85,800/-
13. Therefore, I hold that the claimant are entitled to
get the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,85,800/- with 7.5%
p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its
realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the
direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the following
order is passed.
14.1 The present appeal is partly allowed .
14.2 The finding of the learned Tribunal attributing 30%
contributory negligence to the claimant is reversed.
14.3 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 15:38:13 IST 2026

C/FA/1755/2013 (GJHC240394302013) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
enhanced amount Rs.4,85,800/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from
the date of claim petition till its realization before the
concerned Tribunal, within a period of 12 weeks from the date
of receipt of this order. The claimant shall be entitled to the
balance amount of Rs. 4,85,800/- together with interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of this judgment.
14.4 It is clarified that the insurance company, if paid an
amount in excess of its share of liability would be entitled to
recover the excess amount from the other opponent/s.
14.5 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded
amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with
accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account
payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and
after following due procedure.
14.6 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall
deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with
rules/law.
15. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 15:38:13 IST 2026