SIKANDARBHAI ISMAILBHAI BAKROLIYA vs PUSPENDRA NAGENDRA TRIPATHI [DELETED]
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2245/2016 (GJHC240432902016) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2245 of 2016
==========================================================
SIKANDARBHAI ISMAILBHAI BAKROLIYA
Versus
PUSPENDRA NAGENDRA TRIPATHI [DELETED] & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha at
Modasa (in brief, ‘Tribunal’), vide order dated 28.09.2015,
passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition (Old) No. 917 of
2010 and (New) No. 1650 of 2013, the appellant has filed
the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (in brief, ‘MV Act’).
1.1 By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal
granted the compensation of Rs.1,26,540/- along with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition, till realization against opponent Nos. 1
to 3, herein.
2. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal as
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:36 IST 2026
C/FA/2245/2016 (GJHC240432902016) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
well as the liability to pay the compensation is accepted by
opponent No.3 – insurance company. Hence, this Court
does not deem it fit to burden the present judgment by re-
stating the facts of the case.
3. Heard, learned advocate, Mr. Sheth, appearing for the
appellant and learned advocate, Mr. Raval, appearing for
opponent No.3 – insurance company. Though served, none
appears for opponent Nos. 1 and 2.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Sheth, appearing for the
appellant submitted that, though, the alleged accident took
place on 27.06.2010, the learned Tribunal, in absence of
any concrete evidence, took the notional monthly income of
the appellant at Rs.2500/- per month, only. It was
submitted that, as per the settled principles of law, in
absence of any evidence establishing the income of the
claimant, the Tribunal ought to have referred to the
minimum daily wage for the skilled workers, prevailing at
the time of road accident. In the present case, at the time of
accident, the claimant was repairing trucks. The attention
of this Court was, therefore, drawn to the minimum wage
for the skilled workers prevailing at the time of accident, i.e.
on 27.06.2010, which was Rs.4210/- per month and
therefore, it was submitted that the Tribunal ought to have
applied the said rate. It was, further, submitted that, on
account of the road accident, the appellant – claimant had
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:36 IST 2026
C/FA/2245/2016 (GJHC240432902016) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
to undergo operation of right leg, where, two bars were fitted
with screws and that had led to the appellant – claimant
undergo knife for the second time. It was, therefore,
submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed the
compensation in a very truncated manner and has awarded
Rs.1,26,540/-, on all counts.
5. Per contra , learned advocate, Mr. Raval, appearing on
behalf of opponent No.3 – insurance company would
support the impugned judgment and award and would
argue that the Tribunal has rightly, in absence of any
evidence on record, assessed the income of the appellant –
claimant at Rs.3050/- per month and disability at 12% of
the body as a whole. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded just,
fair and adequate compensation, which this Court may not
disturb by allowing this appeal.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, I
find fault with the learned Tribunal, which failed to take
into consideration the minimum wages for the skilled
workers prevailing at the time of accident, i.e. on
27.06.2010, which was Rs.4210/- and was prevailing
between 01.04.2010 to 20.09.2010 within the State of
Gujarat, as mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of ‘ Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai
Rabari & Anr. ’, reported in 2025 LiveLaw SC 871, and
instead the Tribunal took a meager amount of Rs.3500/- as
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:36 IST 2026
C/FA/2245/2016 (GJHC240432902016) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
monthly income for mathematical calculation of
compensation. Therefore, such an approach on the part of
the Tribunal is unacceptable. This Court cannot go to
meager or lower side to calculate the compensation. Such
an approach has shrunk the very concept of just, fair and
adequate compensation. It should not be wind-fall, but, at
the same time, it should not be petty. The appellant
claimant suffered fracture injuries and he had to undergo
knife, twice. Firstly, when two rods were inserted in his right
leg and fitted with screws and secondly, for removing them.
Overlooking, these major factors under the head of pain,
shock and suffering, the Tribunal has assessed Rs.10,000/-
and Rs.9,000/- towards transportation and attendance and
special diet charges, jointly. I find this as the end result of
the conservative thoughts and it runs contrary to very
thought of just, fair and adequate compensation. Looking to
12% physical / functional disability accepted by the
claimant, I find that this a fit case to grant additional
compensation. I, therefore, find that granting Rs.1,75,000/-
towards total compensation would be just, fair and
adequate compensation.
7. Hence, for the reasons recorded herein above, this
appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The
appellants are entitled to get enhanced amount of
compensation / additional compensation of (Rs.1,75,000 –
Rs.1,26,540) = Rs.48,460 /- along with the interest at the
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:36 IST 2026
C/FA/2245/2016 (GJHC240432902016) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
rate of 8%, as the same is since sustained. Opponent No.3 –
insurance company is directed to deposit the additional
amount of compensation, along with interest and
proportionate costs, with the concerned Tribunal within the
period of eight weeks , from today. After the entire amount
is deposited, the concerned Tribunal shall disburse the
same to the claimants, in accordance with law. R&P, if any,
be sent back, forthwith.
Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:36 IST 2026