HEMIBEN PRAKASHKUMAR CHAUDHARI vs NARSIMHBHAI RANABHAI CHHANGA

C/FA/3588/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240401582013)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3588 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-

=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
=====================================================
HEMIBEN PRAKASHKUMAR CHAUDHARI
Versus
NARSIMHBHAI RANABHAI CHHANGA & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ARUNKUMAR R DAVE(8949) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR ANAL S SHAH(3988) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
SHARMISHTA A DAVE(8735) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 14/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. It is a case where the injured claimant continued to
work after recovering from the injury. The learned Tribunal
applied the multiplier of 5 on the ground that the claimant
continued in the service. Being aggrieved by such finding
recorded in the judgment of MACP No.782 of 2005 dated
22.01.2008, claimant preferred this appeal under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:35:11 IST 2026

C/FA/3588/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240401582013)
2. Other facts of the case are not material except that
the learned Tribunal held the truck driver negligent up to 90%
and the Hero Honda driver up to 10%, and that the claimant was
working in Kumbasan High School at Kumbasan, Taluka:
Palanpur and was getting a fixed salary of Rs.4,500/-, who
sustained 12% functional disability, but continued to work as a
teacher post injury.
3. The learned Tribunal, for no reason, split the
multiplier and granted a multiplier of 5 to calculate the
compensation.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Reliance
General Insurance Company Limited v. Priyanka Das and
Ors. , reported in 2026 INSC 950 , insisted on taking the regular
multiplier even in a case where the victim continued his regular
job post-accident.
5. This Court in the case of Rakeshkumar Navnitlal
Shah v. Hirenkumar Kiritkumar Shah, First Appeal No. 636
of 2012 has taken the identical view.
6. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Tribunal to
apply the multiplier of 5 being contrary to the principle of just,
fair and equitable compensation as well as in teeth of the
judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 is required to be
set aside.
7. The nature of the injuries deciphered from the
disability certificate dated 25.05.2006 placed on record shows
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:35:11 IST 2026

C/FA/3588/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240401582013)
the restriction of movement in the leg and singular fracture of
the fibula .
8. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit
case of granting the global compensation.
9. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.88,400/-
towards the compensation, which is hereby raised to
Rs.1,60,000/-, maintaining the rate of interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of the petition till realization even for
enhanced amount of compensation.
10. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of in terms of enhancing the amount of compensation
by Rs.71,600/- with 7.5% per annum interest from the date of
the petition till realization, maintaining the inter se ratio of
negligence of both the vehicles involved in the road accident.
11. Both the insurance companies are directed to deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation along with the accrued
interest of their share within 08 weeks from today.
12. 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.
13. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct
the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:35:11 IST 2026

C/FA/3588/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240401582013)
14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:35:11 IST 2026