SANJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI DABHI vs SANJAY SITARAM PHALORH
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/738/2016 (GJHC240421932016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 738 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SANJAYBHAI KANTIBHAI DABHI
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
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
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 31.12.2015 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.516 of 2011, whereby the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.2,28,500/- 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- Sanjaybhai
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:38:20 IST 2026
C/FA/738/2016 (GJHC240421932016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Kantibhai Dabhi was driving his Rickshaw bearing registration
No.GJ-1-CT-8632 and going to Ahmedabad along with
passengers. 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 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.2,28,500/- 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 16:38:20 IST 2026
C/FA/738/2016 (GJHC240421932016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
that the appellant was working as a Rickshaw driver and was
earning Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month, but the income of
the claimant could not be proved on record by leading cogent
evidence. In the absence of cogent evidence of income, the
learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the
claimant on the basis of the guesswork, considering the nature
of avocation of the claimant. In support of his contention, he
placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Minu Rout & Anr. Vs. Satya Pradyumna
Mohapatra & Ors. , reported in 2013 (10) SCC 695 , wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court assessed the monthly income of the driver at
Rs.6,000/-.
4.1. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that
at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 22 years,
therefore, 40% 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 awarded a meagre amount of
compensation under the heads of pain, shock and suffering,
special diet, attendant charges and transportation and actual
loss of income. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:38:20 IST 2026
C/FA/738/2016 (GJHC240421932016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
compensation under these heads.
5. Per contra , Mr. G. C. Mazmudar, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3- Insurance Company
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. It is 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 quantum is concerned, it is not in dispute that at
the time of accident, the appellant was working as a driver and
used to drive an auto-rickshaw. It is the case of the
claimant/appellant that he was earning Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.7,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence was placed
on record to substantiate his income. The accident in question
took place on 16.01.2011. In the case of Minu Rout ( supra ), the
Hon’ble Apex Court assessed the income of the driver at
Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, considering the nature of avocation
of the claimant and the year of occurrence of he accident, the
monthly income of the claimant/appellant is reassessed at
Rs.6,000/- per month.
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:38:20 IST 2026
C/FA/738/2016 (GJHC240421932016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
8. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the
claimant was aged about 22 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 ), 40% of the monthly income is to be
added on account of future prospects of the claimant. Thus, after
adding 40% to the income, it would come to Rs.8,400/- i.e.
(6,000 + 40% of 6,000).
9. The learned Tribunal has considered the functional
disability at 34%, which is not in dispute. Thus, applying the
multiplier of 18 as per the age of the claimant, the future loss of
income would come to Rs.6,16,896/- i.e. (8,400 x 34% x 12 x
18).
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 emerges
from the record that the claimant has sustained multiple
fractures. It also emerges from the record that owing to the
injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant remained
hospitalized for a considerable time and thereafter, he received
treatment as an out-door patient. Thus, considering the nature
of injuries sustained by the claimant and having regard to the
period of hospitalization, the compensation awarded under the
head of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced from Rs.20,000/-
to Rs.30,000/- and the compensation awarded under the head of
special diet, attendant charges and transportation is enhanced
from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:38:20 IST 2026
C/FA/738/2016 (GJHC240421932016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
11. The learned Tribunal had awarded the actual loss of
income for a period of three months. Considering the injuries
sustained by the claimant and having regard to the avocation of
the claimant, the compensation awarded under the head of
actual loss of income is required to be awarded for a period of
four months. Hence, a sum of Rs.24,000/- (6,000 x 4) is
awarded under the head of actual loss of income.
12. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,16,500/-
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 6,16,896/-
Actual Loss of Income 24,000/-
Medical Expenses 1,16,500/-
Special Diet, Attendant Charges and
Transportation
25,000/-
Pain, Shock and Suffering 30,000/-
Total Compensation 8,12,396/-
Less: 40% Self Negligence 3,24,958/-
Total Compensation 4,87,438/-
Less: compensation already awarded by the
learned Tribunal
2,28,500/-
Additional amount of Compensation 2,58,938/-
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:38:20 IST 2026
C/FA/738/2016 (GJHC240421932016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
14. In view of the above discussion, the claimant shall be
entitled for the total compensation of Rs.8,12,396/-. Out of the
total compensation 40% is deducted on account of self
negligence of the claimant. Therefore, after deducting 40% from
the total compensation, which would come to Rs.4,87,438/-
(8,12,396 – 40% of 8,12,396).
15. The learned Tribunal had already awarded a sum of
Rs.2,28,500/-. Therefore, the claimant/appellant shall be
entitled for the additional compensation of Rs. 2,58,938/- i.e.
(Rs.4,87,438/- - Rs.2,28,500/-). 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
the rate of 8.5% on the additional amount of compensation.
16. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal
stands allowed partly. The impugned judgment and award is
modified to the aforesaid extent.
17. The respondent No.3- Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with the
interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition till its realization, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
18. 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
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 16:38:20 IST 2026
C/FA/738/2016 (GJHC240421932016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Tribunal forthwith.
19. R & P, if any, be sent to the concerned learned Tribunal
forthwith.
20. 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 16:38:20 IST 2026