MUKESHBHAI CHAGANBHAI MAHARAJ (BAHURUPI) vs YOGESHKUMAR KANTIBHAI PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1879/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240424652015)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1879 of 2015
==========================================================
MUKESHBHAI CHAGANBHAI MAHARAJ (BAHURUPI)
Versus
YOGESHKUMAR KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 22/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Present First Appeal is directed against the judgment
and award dated 18.03.2013, passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad, in MACP No.
1895 of 2004, by which, the learned Tribunal granted total
compensation of Rs.1,84,900/- together with interest at 9%
per annum from the date of deposit till realisation. The award
was also passed against all the opponents to pay amount of
compensation jointly or severally.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under;
2.1 On 29.07.2004, the appellant-Mukeshbhai and others
were traveling in a loading tempo, bearing registration No.
GJ-7-Z-9324, along with their goods and when they reached
near the place of accident, i.e. Vrundavan Hotel, on the
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 17:53:42 IST 2026
C/FA/1879/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240424652015)
outskirts of village Gandhipura, Kheda-Dholka road, at that
time driver of auto-rickshaw, bearing registration No. GJ-7-Z-
890, came driving his auto-rickshaw in rash and negligent
manner and with excessive speed and dashed with the tempo
in which the claimant and others were traveling.
2.2 On account of the accident, the appellant-claimant
received severe injuries and, initially, he was taken to Civil
Hospital, Nadiad, and from there, he was taken to Civil
Hospital, Ahmedabad.
2.3 As a result of the accident, the appellant-claimant
received fracture injuries and his leg had to be amputated and
by producing the documents, Exhibits-78 & 79, it was claimed
that the he had sustained 60% permanent disability of the
body as a whole and he also examined Dr. Shantiswaroop
Kshatriya to prove the said aspect.
2.4 Therefore, the appellant has prayed compensation for
Rs. 3,00,000/- and to held all the respondents jointly and
severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.
2.5 The learned Tribunal after assessing issue of inter se
negligence of both the vehicles, granted the compensation as
stated herein above. Hence, present First Appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Modi, and learned
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 17:53:42 IST 2026
C/FA/1879/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240424652015)
advocate, Mr. Mazmudar, for the respective parties.
4. At the outset, I may refer to medical certificates (Exh.78
& 79) issued by Dr. Shantiswaroop Kshatriya and proved by
the doctor's testimony which indicates that the appellant-
claimant sustained disability to the extent of 60% of the body
as a whole.
5. The certificate further records that the claimant, who
was working as a ‘Bahurupi’, had partially lost the use of his
right leg, and that this made clear that the claimant, who was
required to use his right leg for his work, had lost material
earning capacity. Therefore, learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in taking up 30% functional disability.
However, the learned Tribunal erred in not granting just and
proper compensation towards loss of future prospects in view
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ‘ V.
Pathmavathi Versus Bharthi Axa General Insurance
Co.Ltd., reported in AIR 2026 SC 840.
6. The income part taken up by the learned Tribunal is also
not correct as the same not being based on the claimant's rate
of earnings. Multiplier taken up by the learned Tribunal is
correct since the claimant is of 25-30 years of age group.
However, the compensation under other heads are required to
be worked out.
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 17:53:42 IST 2026
C/FA/1879/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240424652015)
7. To be noted that this was a case involving composite
negligence. The claimant was not the driver of either vehicle,
but was traveling as a passenger in the tempo, and had not in
any way contributed to the accident. In these circumstances,
relying on the observations in a recent judgment of the
Supreme Court in case of Manomati Chouhan Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2026 ACJ 742, all
the opponents are held to be jointly and severally liable
towards the compensation.
8. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Compensation As Per
Claimant
Impugned
Award
1. Future Loss of Income:
Income:
Rs.1500/-
Rs.2300/-
Prospective Income:
-
Rs.920/-
Total
Rs.1500/-
Rs.3220/-
Disability:
30%
30%
Total
Rs.450/-
Rs.966/-
Annually:
12
12
Sub-Total
Rs.5400/-
Rs.11,592/-
Multiplier:
17
17
Total
Rs.91,800/-
Rs.1,97,064/-
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 17:53:42 IST 2026
C/FA/1879/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240424652015)
2. Pain, Shock, Suffering: Rs.30,000/- Rs.50,000/-
3. Special Diet, Attendant
Rs.9000/- Rs.9000/-
& Transport:
4. Medical: Rs.45,100/- Rs.45,100/-
5. Loss of Amenities: - -
6. Actual Loss of Income
Rs.9000/- Rs.13,800/-
06 Months
Grand Total Rs.1,84,900/- Rs.3,14,964/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.3,14,964/-
- Rs.1,84,900/-
= Rs.1,30,064 /-
9. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled to get
the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,30,064/- with 9% 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.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
10.1 The present appeal is partly allowed .
10.2 The Opponents - Insurance Companies are directed
to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.1,30,064/- with 9% p.a.
interest from the date of claim petition till its realization before
the concerned Tribunal in the ratio of 50% each, within a period
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 17:53:42 IST 2026
C/FA/1879/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240424652015)
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The
claimant would be entitled to recover the enhanced amount of
compensation from all the respondents jointly and severally.
10.3 It is clarified that the insurance companies have, if
paid an amount in excess of its share of liability, then it would
be entitled to recover the excess amount from the other
opponent/s.
10.4 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.
10.5 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct
the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
11. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 22 17:53:42 IST 2026