TAKHATSINH KALIDAS PARMAR vs RAFIK AHMED SHARIFBHAI MIRZA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1624 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
TAKHATSINH KALIDAS PARMAR
Versus
RAFIK AHMED SHARIFBHAI MIRZA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 29/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 29.10.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara in MACP No.699/2010, whereby the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.4,28,906/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
04.04.2010, at about 7:00 pm, the claimant-Takhatsinh Kalidas Parmar
was going towards his home by riding the motorcycle bearing
registration no.GJ-06-CL-8530 at very moderate speed and on the
correct side of the road. When he reached at the place of accident, the
respondent no.1 herein came by driving a dumper bearing registration
no.GJ-06-VV-8175 at an excessive speed, in rash and negligent
manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant from behind
and caused the accident. Due to the impact of the said accident, the
claimant sustained severe injuries.
3. On being served, the respondent no.3 filed its written statement
at Exh.12, thereby denying all the averments made in the claim petition
and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective
parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.4,28,906/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned judgment
and award on the ground of quantum as well as negligence.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original claimant/appellant vehemently submitted that the accident had
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the dumper
bearing registration no.GJ-06-VV-8175 as the two wheeler on which the
claimant/appellant was travelling, was hit by the said dumper from the
behind, therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the
claimant/appellant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nishan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited through Regional Manager, reported in 2018 (6)
SCC 765.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation under
the head of future loss of income. He submitted that the learned
Tribunal, having placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by
Gujarat High Court in case of Rameshbhai Ramnikbhai Vyas Vs.
Ismail Ibrahim & Suleman Ibrahim & Anr., reported in LAWS(GJH)
2012 4 279 and State of Gujarat Vs. Somabhai Dhurabhai Sindhava
& Ors., reported in (1993) 2 GLR 1043, applied the multiplier of 5
instead of 12. He submitted that the learned Tribunal ought not to have
applied the multiplier of 5. He submitted that now the law is well settled
regarding the multiplier in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and Anr ., reported in AIR (2009) 6 SC 3104, which was approved by
the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16)
SCC 680. He further submitted that the split multiplier is not permitted to
be applied in the present case. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the appellant has placed the reliance upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Preetha Krishnan &
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2365, Sumathi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3697,
Puttamma & Ors. Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Anr., reported in
(2013) 15 SCC 45. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that in similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case
of Hari Om Const. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in
2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 71033, applied the full multiplier in case of a
Government employee.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the
claimant/appellant. He submitted that the claimant/appellant was
working as a Government servant, therefore, considering the age of the
claimant/appellant, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 15% of
the monthly income on account of future prospects of the
claimant/appellant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant has placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sidram Vs.
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
& Anr., reported in 2022 INSC 1202. He further submitted that the
learned Single Judge of this High Court in Ghansyam Manubhai
Sharma Vs. Vishmay Harshadkumar Thakkar & Ors., passed in First
Appeal No.259/2023 and Nitinkumar Rameshchandra Shah Vs.
Shikh Rajubhai Jagtarsinh & Ors., passed in First Appeal
No.3468/2021 and allied matters, awarded the future prospects to the
claimant, therefore, he prayed that the impugned judgment and award is
modified to the aforesaid extent.
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
10. Per contra, Mr. R.G. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company vehemently submitted
that at the time of accident, the claimant/appellant was working as a
Senior Sanitary Inspector with Vadodara Municipal Corporation at
Vadodara. He further submitted that owing to the injuries sustained in
the accident, the income of the claimant/appellant was not affected and
he continued to receive his salary. He further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 5 while awarding the
compensation under the head of future loss of income. He further
submitted that the claimant/appellant is not entitled for the prospective
income as his income had increased after the date of accident.
Therefore, he submitted that the claimant/appellant has not sustained
any loss. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 has placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma & Anr., reported in 2022 ACJ 1211.
Having placed the reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned
counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that the learned Tribunal has
rightly considered the multiplier of 5.
11. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
claimant/appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and award
on the ground of quantum as well as negligence.
12. So far as the negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
held that the claimant/appellant was himself negligent to the extent of
20%. It is the case of the claimant/appellant that the offending dumper
came from behind and dashed with the two wheeler of the
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
claimant/appellant from behind. In order to prove his case, the
claimant/appellant has filed his affidavit at Exh.18 along with the lines of
pleadings. He was cross-examined on the aspect of negligence but
nothing adverse came on record. The version of the claimant/appellant
is also supported by the FIR and panchnama of place of accident. The
driver of the dumper has not stepped into witness box in order to rebut
the version of the claimant/appellant. Thus, it is evident from the
evidence on record that the two wheeler of the claimant was hit from
behind. As per Rule 23 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the
driver of the dumper ought to have maintained the proper distance. In
case of Nishan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 12, has
observed as under:-
“12 The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the
High Court, by observing that the evidence was clearly indicative of the
fact that the maruti car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner,
which was the cause for accident of this nature and resulting in death of
one of the passengers in the maruti car. The maruti car was driven by
none other than PW2 Manjeet Singh. In his evidence, he has admitted
that the subject truck was running ahead of the maruti car for quite some
time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance
between the truck and maruti car was only 10 15 feet. He has also
admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between
two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the
road on which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 feet wide.
It is unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would
move at a high speed as alleged. In any case, the maruti car which was
following the truck was expected to maintain a safe distance, as
envisaged in Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989,
which reads thus:
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
“23. Distance from vehicles in front. The driver of a motor vehicle
moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from
that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should
suddenly slow down or stop.”
The expression ‘sufficient distance’ has not been defined in the
Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least
a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert
collision and to allow the following driver time to respond. The distance of
10–15 feet between the truck and maruti car was certainly not a safe
distance for which the driver of the maruti car must take the blame. It must
necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought
to be against the claimants.”
13. Thus, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Nishan Singh (supra), the learned Tribunal has
committed an error in holding that the claimant himself was negligent for
causing the accident to the extent of 20%. Therefore, the finding
returned by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable. The same is
modified and accordingly, the driver of the dumper is held solely
negligent for causing the accident.
14. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal after
considering the income, age, nature of job of the claimant/appellant,
applied the multiplier of 5 in view of the ratio laid down by the Gujarat
High Court in case of Rameshbhai Ramnikbhai Vyas (supra) and
Somabhai Dhurabhai Sindhava & Ors. (supra). It is not in dispute that at
the time of accident, the claimant/appellant was working as a Senior
Sanitary Inspector with Vadodara Municipal Corporation at Vadodara.
His gross monthly salary was Rs.37,241/- and after deducting the
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
income tax and professional tax, the learned Tribunal has assessed the
monthly salary of the claimant/appellant as Rs.34,541/-, which is not in
dispute. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 5
in order to compute the future loss of income. While calculating the
future loss of income, the learned Tribunal even not considered the
future prospects. So far as the multiplier is concerned, the Constitutional
Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has
held that the multiplier has to be applied in accordance to the age of the
claimant or the deceased. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Preetha Krishnan & Ors. (supra), Sumathi & Ors. (supra) and Puttamma
& Ors. (supra), has deprecated the application of split multiplier.
Therefore, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the ratio laid down by the
Gujarat High Court in case of Somabhai Dhurabhai Sindhava & Ors.
(supra) and Rameshbhai Ramnikbhai Vyas (supra) stands superseded.
15. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the
appellant/claimant was aged about 55 years. Thus, in view of the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
the claimant/appellant is entitled to get the enhancement of monthly
income by 15%. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sidram
(supra), in para no.31 observed as under:-
“31. It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of permanent
disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can
seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for
future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different
tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the
view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects
in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification
to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident
cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such
a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of
the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases – and admits
such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim’s death.”
16. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Soni Sharma Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2026 ACJ 109 in para
nos.11 and 12, has observed as under”-
“11. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of the accident, the claimant-
appellant was serving in the Indian Army, a profession which demands
highest standards of physical fitness, alertness, and endurance. Any
impairment or disability resulting from the said accident is, therefore, not
merely a personal affliction but one that has a direct bearing on his ability
to effectively discharge his duties. Such an impairment is likely to
adversely affect his efficiency, career prospects both in service or
thereafter, and overall service capability in a profession where physical
robustness is a fundamental prerequisite, thereby justifying compensation
as was awarded by the Tribunal.
12. The mere fact that the claimant-appellant continued in service or did
not seek premature retirement could not have been determinative of the
issue, as loss of earning capacity may subsist notwithstanding
continuation in employment. Likewise, loss of promotional prospects is
required to be assessed on reasonable probabilities having regard to the
nature of employment and extent of disability, and does not require strict
proof. The High Court substantially reduced the compensation on the
ground that the amounts awarded were excessive. Such an exercise
amounts to re- appreciation of evidence which is beyond the permissible
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
scope of appellate jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act.”
17. Having considered the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, there is
no iota of doubt that even though the claimant/appellant is a
Government servant and his income was not affected owing to the
injuries sustained in the accident, he is entitled to get the compensation
under the head of future loss of income and also entitled to get future
prospects. Thus, in view of the settled legal position, the
appellant/claimant shall be entitled for future prospective rise in the
income. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the
claimant/appellant as Rs.34,541/- per month. Considering the age of the
claimant/appellant, the monthly income is to be enhanced by 15% on
account of future prospects. Thus, after adding 15% to the monthly
income, it would come to Rs.39,722/- i.e. (34,541+34,541X15%). The
learned Tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 9%, which is
not under challenge. Thus, considering the functional disability of 9%
and applying the multiplier of 11 as per age of the claimant, the
claimant/appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.4,71,897/- i.e.
(39,722X9%X12X11) under the head of future loss of income.
18. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,246/- under
the head of actual loss of income, a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head
of pain, shock and suffering, a sum of Rs.1,19,406/- under the head of
medical expenses and a sum of Rs.8,000/- under the head of special
diet and transportation. The compensation awarded under these heads
is not under challenge and accordingly the same is maintained.
19. In view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant shall be
entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
heads:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Future loss of income 4,71,897/-
2. Actual loss of income 2,07,246/-
3. Pain, shock and suffering 15,000/-
4. Medical expenses 1,19,406/-
5 Special diet and transportation 8,000/-
Total 8,21,549/-
20. The learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of
Rs.4,28,906/- as a compensation, therefore, the original
claimant/appellant shall be entitled for additional compensation of
Rs.3,92,643/- i.e. (8,21,549-4,28,906). The learned Tribunal has
awarded the interest at the rate of 7% per annum, therefore, the original
claimant/appellant shall be entitled for the same rate of interest on
additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim
petition till its realization.
21. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands
allowed partly and the impugned judgment and award is to be modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondent no.3/insurance company shall
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest within
a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
22. Upon depositing of the said amount of compensation, the learned
Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation along with
interest to the original claimant/appellant herein after deducting deficit of
Court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any, lying
deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026
C/FA/1624/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
23. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Jul 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 16:04:45 IST 2026