VIJAYSINH NARENDRASINH ZALA vs THAKOR PRAKASHKUMAR MATHURJI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/801/2026 (GJHC240688412025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 801 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
=====================================================
VIJAYSINH NARENDRASINH ZALA
Versus
THAKOR PRAKASHKUMAR MATHURJI & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed
in MACP No.28 of 2019 dated 04.01.2025 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Main), Patan, the claimant has preferred this
appeal mainly on two grounds; firstly, that the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal has not granted the amount of
compensation for the loss of future prospectus and secondly,
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:37:59 IST 2026
C/FA/801/2026 (GJHC240688412025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
that the amount for compensation for the attendant charge has
been calculated on the lower side.
2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3. The factual aspects borne out of the judgment, reads
as under:-
3.1 On 20.04.2018, the claimant was on his duty at
Shakti mineral bottle water plant. At about 7:45 a.m., he
received an order of 20 water jugs, to deliver the order travelled
in a rickshaw number GJ-24-W-2011 carrying the water jugs,
and at that time, at about 8:00 a.m., the driver of the auto
rickshaw was driving his vehicle in at an excessive speed in a
rash and negligent manner, and when they reached near
Sananagar Society, he could not avert the accident and lost
control over the vehicle. Consequently, the rickshaw turned
turtle. The claimant received various spinal injuries and
fracture. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Siddhpur for
primary treatment, and thereafter, for onward treatment to
Sanjivani Hospital, Mehsana, and lastly, he was shifted to
Sterling Hospital, Ahmedabad for further treatment. He was an
indoor patient at Sterling Hospital for 10 days, and
subsequently, he was admitted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad.
3.2 It is based upon the aforesaid aspect and that the
claimant was hale and hearty and was earning around Rs.
30,000/- per month, but the injury, which is sustained out of
the road accident, has totally paralyzed him and has suffered the
financial and functional loss.
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:37:59 IST 2026
C/FA/801/2026 (GJHC240688412025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
3.3 The learned Tribunal assessed the evidence and also
income and reached to the conclusion that the claimant is
entitled to the compensation of Rs.34,26,620/- with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum. The breakup of the compensation can
be deciphered from Para 11.14 of the judgment as under:-
₹ 19,68,870/- Future loss of Income
₹ 2,00,000/- Pain, Shock, Suffering
₹ 3,60,000/- Future Attendant Charges
₹ 50,000/- Special diet and
transportation, etc.
₹ 43,750/- Actual Loss.
₹ 8,04,000/- Medical Expenses.
₹ 34,26,620/- Total Awardable amount
3.4 For the calculation of just, adequate and fair
compensation, learned Tribunal accepted the income of the
deceased of Rs.1,31,258/-, also accepted that claimant has
suffered 100% functional disability along with compensation on
other heads, totaling Rs.34,26,620/-. Considering his age of 39
years, applied to the multiplier of 15 and granted the
compensation of Rs.19,68,870/-. However, noticeably, the
learned Tribunal has committed the serious error in not granting
the compensation for the future prospective loss.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Paramesh v.
VRL Logistics Ltd. & Anr. , reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC)
641 , held that when a person is functional disabled to a large
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:37:59 IST 2026
C/FA/801/2026 (GJHC240688412025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
extent, the amount of compensation towards future prospects
has to be granted. The relevant paragraph 14 to 17 are
reproduced as under:-
“14. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that
while the High Court enhanced the monthly income of the
appellant from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-, it awarded a
sum of Rs. 3,42,720/- towards future prospects by applying
addition of 40%. However, on a closer scrutiny of the
calculation undertaken by the High Court, it becomes
evident that the said amount of Rs. 5 This amount has been
wrongly calculated by High Court. Our analysis from Para
14 onwards addresses this. 3,42,720/- has been arrived at
by applying 40% future prospects on the amount of loss of
income as calculated by the Tribunal, namely Rs.
8,56,800/-.
15. Once the High Court itself enhanced the monthly income
of the appellant to Rs. 12,000/- and consequently
recalculated the loss of earning capacity at Rs. 17,13,600/-
(12,000 × 12 × 17 × 70/100), the addition towards future
prospects ought to have been computed on the said
recalculated amount. In such circumstances, the correct
amount towards future prospects would work out to Rs.
6,85,440/- being 40% of Rs. 17,13,600/-. The High Court
appears to have inadvertently computed the addition
towards future prospects on the basis of the income
assessed by the Tribunal instead of the recalculated income
determined by the High Court itself.
16. That apart, a further careful perusal of the table
hereinabove and the comparative calculation undertaken by
the High Court would also reveal that though the High Court
did not interfere with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal
under the heads of nutrition, clothing and ornaments and
medical expenses, the said amounts were inadvertently
omitted from the final computation of compensation
undertaken by the High Court. The aforesaid amounts,
having not been disturbed by the High Court, ought to have
formed part of the final computation of compensation.
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:37:59 IST 2026
C/FA/801/2026 (GJHC240688412025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
17. Having noticed the aforesaid infirmities in the
computation undertaken by the High Court, we may now
advert to the claim of the appellant seeking further
enhancement of compensation.”
5. Taking the cue from the aforesaid judgment,
according to this Court, the future prospects of 40% has to be
granted as the claimant had no permanent source of income.
6. As far as pain, shock and suffering is concerned,
looking to the prolonged hospitalization period as well as injuries
to the spinal cord putting claimant to state of prolonged
paralysis, I am of the opinion that enhancement in the
compensation under the aforesaid head is required to be granted
from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- .
7. As far as grant of compensation under the head of
future attendant charges is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
granted the compensation taking the expense at Rs.2,000/- per
month (See para 11.9 of the impugned judgment).
8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Bhavik @Bhavin Dwarkadas Vithlani v. Ganpatsinh
Manubha Jadeja & Anr. , reported in 2021 (3) GLR 2125,
insisted that when the occasion arise to grant the compensation
for future attendant charge, the rate of minimum wage has to be
taken into consideration for granting the expenses.
9. In the present case, the accident took place on
20.04.2018, the rate of minimum wage at the relevant time was
Rs.8,200/-. So, accordingly, the compensation for the head of
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:37:59 IST 2026
C/FA/801/2026 (GJHC240688412025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
future attendant charge has to be granted as Rs.8,200/- per
month and multiplier, which is applicable to grant compensation
for future loss has to be applied.
10. In the case of Bhavik @Bhavin Dwarkadas
Vithlani (Supra) , the Division Bench of this Court in para 12
observed as under:-
“12. In the present case, it is accepted by both the sides
that in the year 2010, the wages fixed by the State
Government with regard to the skilled labourers was
Rs.4,210/.The Physiotherapists, who were engaged for the
treatment of the claimant are examined at Exh.48 and
Exh.51. Dr.Dineshbhai Kanjibhai Gajera is examined at
Exh.44. In his deposition he has stated that the claimant
will permanently require the services of attendants and
nursing in future. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/ for attendant charges and special diet and
transportation as Rs.1,00,000/ on the ground that the
evidence with regard to their expenses/charges is not
founded to be trustworthy. In the considered opinion of this
Court, even if such evidence is not founded to be reliable, the
fact of engaging the physiotherapists and attendant is
proved and as per the parameter prescribed by the Apex
Court in the case of Kajal (supra), the wages of attendants
and physiotherapists can be fixed as per the norms fixed by
the state government for the skilled labourers. Since the
exact wages are not proved before the Tribunal, this Court is
of the considered opinion that looking to the wages of the
skilled labourers, which is fixed by the State Government as
Rs.4,210/, in the year 2010, it would be appropriate to fix
the expense of Rs.3,500/ for physiotherapist(s) and
Rs.2,500/ for attendant and Rs.1,000/ for special diet and
transportation. The said expenses are rounded off as
Rs.7,000/ per month which comes to Rs.84,000/ per
annum. Using the multiplier of 18, the total amount works
out to be Rs.15,12,000/. Thus, while meeting with the
exigencies of the future attendant charges, accordingly the
compensation towards the under the heads of attendant
charges, special diet and transportation can be enhanced
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:37:59 IST 2026
C/FA/801/2026 (GJHC240688412025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
from Rs.1,00,000/ to Rs.15,00,000/. With regard to the
compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering,
the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/.
11. As far as the grant of compensation under the head
of special diet and transportation and under the head of actual
loss is concerned, in case of 100% functional disablement, where
the claimant was rendered completely functional disabled,
question of granting the compensation for the actual loss does
not arise. However, grant of compensation under the head of
special diet and transportation, etc. in view of the prolonged
hospitalization as well as multiple transportation, is required to
be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.50,000/-.
12. The grant of compensation under the head of actual
loss is incorrect and required to be discontinued.
13. In view of above, when the actual medical expenses
have been granted towards the compensation, I do not see any
reason to interfere with that finding.
14. The just, adequate and fair compensation re-worked
out in this appeal would be as per the following tabular format:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of Income
27,56,415/-
Rs.1,31,258/- x 40% = Rs.52,503/-
Rs.1,31,258/- + Rs.52,503/- = Rs.1,83,761/-
Rs.1,83,761/- x 100% x 15 = Rs.27,56,415/-
Pain, Shock, Suffering 4,00,000/-
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:37:59 IST 2026
C/FA/801/2026 (GJHC240688412025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
Future Attendant charges (8200 x 12 x 15) 14,76,000/-
Special diet 1,00,000/-
Medical expenses. 8,04,000/-
Total... 55,36,415/-
Less : Amount which is already awarded 34,26,620/-
Additional amount which is awarded 21,09,795/-
15. The amount of interest granted by the learned
Tribunal shall continue to operate on the enhanced amount of
compensation, except for the amount of compensation for future
attendant charges.
16. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors. , reported in 1995 (1) SCC 551 , the Supreme Court
held that the interest shall not be payable over the amount
directed to be paid to the appellant in respect of future
expenditures. Therefore, the amount directed to be paid towards
future attendant charges shall not carry any interest. The
relevant observation of the judgment reads as under:-
“...The High Court should have clarified that the interest
shall not be payable over the amount directed to be paid to
the appellant in respect of future expenditures under
different heads. It need not be pointed out that interest is to
be paid over the amount which has become payable on the
date of award and not which is to be paid for expenditures
to be incurred in future. As such we direct that appellant
shall not be entitled to interest over such amount.”
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:37:59 IST 2026
C/FA/801/2026 (GJHC240688412025) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
17. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is
allowed to the extent that the claimant would be entitled to an
enhanced compensation of Rs. 21,09,795/-, except for Rs.
14,76,000/-, i.e. compensation granted towards future attendant
charges, rest of enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till
realization.
18. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount Rs. 21,09,795/- within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of this order.
18.1 Except for Rs. 14,76,000/-, rest of enhanced amount
of compensation shall carry the interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.
19. 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 claimants, by account payee
cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after
following due procedure.
20. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 12:37:59 IST 2026