Gujarat High Court
Abdul Kadar Rasulbhai Mansuri ... vs Zala Lalsinh Kishorsinh on 25 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2851 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ABDUL KADAR RASULBHAI MANSURI (DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
ZALA LALSINH KISHORSINH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DN PANDYA(545) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 25/02/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 13.06.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Narmada at Rajpipla, in M.A.C.P. No. 158 of 2010, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.7,62,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation.
Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal, as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
i. On 30.07.2010 at about 5:30 a.m., the original claimant - Mr. Abdul Kadar Rasulbhai Mansuri was travelling in a Tavera car bearing registration No.GJ-6-CM-4829 as a passenger. The said Tavera Car was being driven by original opponent No.4 at very moderate speed, by observing traffic rules. When they reached near the place of accident, original opponent No.1 came by driving one truck bearing registration No.GJ-2-U-9207 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Tavera car in which the original claimant was travelling, thereby causing the accident. The original claimant sustained grievous injuries in the vehicular accident.
ii. It is averred before the learned Tribunal that the original claimant was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.7,500/- per month, by practicing as a lawyer. It is also averred before the learned Tribunal that the original claimant has undergone medical treatment for a considerable period of time and has also underdone surgical operations as a result of the injuries sustained in the Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined accident, and had become bedridden. Therefore, the Claim Petition was preferred before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, original opponent Nos.1 to 5/respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, had filed their respective Written Statements, thereby, denying the contentions raised in the claim petition and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition, while original opponent No.6/respondent No.6 though appeared through their advocate, had chosen not to file any Written Statement.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for determination.
i. Whether it is proved that the deceased died/claimants sustained injuries, as a result of rash and/or negligent driving of driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?
ii. Whether the applicants are entitled to get compensation ? If any, what amount and from whom ?
iii. What order and award?Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined iv. Having considered the evidence on record, and having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.7,62,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original Claimant/appellant herein preferred the instant appeal on the ground of quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. D. N. Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant vehemently submitted that at the time of the accident, the claimant was gainfully engaged as a lawyer at Rajpipla. He further submitted that in the vehicular accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and resultanlty, he become paralytic and both his legs were affected by paralysis, as such, he cannot move on his own and has become bedridden. He submitted that the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the claimant at very lower side, though it has been pleaded on record that the claimant was a practicing lawyer, thereby earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.7,500/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is at a lower side. He further submitted that the learned Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined Tribunal has also not considered the future prospective income of the claimant. He further submitted that though the claimant was aged about 52 years at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of "5" in place of "11". He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded meagre amount of compensation under the heads of Pain, shock & suffering, Transportation and Special diet, and Actual loss of income. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of Loss of amenities of life and Attendant charges. He further submitted that just compensation be awarded under all the heads and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 6 - Insurance Companies and Ms. Hasmeet Gill, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 - vehemently submitted that the income of the claimant was not proved on record, therefore, the learned Tribunal, considering the nature of occupation of the claimant, had rightly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month. They contended that the learned Tribunal had awarded just compensation under all the heads, as such, the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company when the matter is called out.
Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to be noted that there is no dispute regarding the manner of occurrence of accident, negligence, age or occupation of the original claimant. The original claimant has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
8. So far as the quantum awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, it is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the claimant was a lawyer by profession, and he was practicing at District Court, Rajpipla. It is the case of the original claimant that at the time of the vehicular accident, he was earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.7,500/-per month, from practicing as a lawyer. Perusal of the record transpires that the original claimant has not proved the income on record by leading any cogent evidence. In the absence of cogent evidence of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident. At the time of the vehicular accident, the minimum wages notified by the State Government of Gujarat for such a skilled worker was Rs.4,210/- per month. Thus, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal after considering the profession of the original claimant, had rightly assessed the income of the original claimant, as such, the monthly income assessed by the learned Tribunal is maintained.
9. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the original claimant was aged above 52 years, therefore, the Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined notional monthly income of the original claimant is to be enhanced by 10% on account of the Future prospects of the original claimant. Therefore, after adding 10% of the notional income to the monthly income of the original claimant, the monthly income of the original claimant would come to Rs.5,500/- (i.e, Rs.5,000/- plus 10% of Rs.5,000/-).
10. The learned Tribunal has considered the functional disability of the original claimant at 50%. The same is not under challenge. Thus, considering the functional disability of the original claimant at 50%, and applying the multiplier of "11" as per age of the claimant, the original claimant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.3,63,000/- (i.e, Rs.5,500/- X 50% Disability X 12 months X multiplier of "11") under the head of Future Loss of income.
11. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- under the head of medical expenses. The learned Tribunal had awarded the said amount of compensation on the basis of evidence produced by the original claimant on record, as such, the same is not required to be interfered with and the same is accordingly maintained.
12. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of Rs.7,000/- under the head of Transportation & special diet. It is on record that the original claimant has sustained serious injuries and he was kept in a ventilator for a long period of time and thereafter, he was surgically operated and he remained hospitalized as an indoor patient for a considerable Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined period of time. Thus, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant in the vehicular accident and having regard to the period of hospitalization and medical treatment undergone, the compensation awarded under the head of Transportation & special diet is enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.20,000/-
13. The learned Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of Actual loss of income for a period of six months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant at the time of accident and having regard to the period of hospitalization and period of medical treatment undergone, no interference is required under this head. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under the head of Actual loss of income is maintained.
14. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award further transpires that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of Pain, shock & suffering. It is on record that the during the pendency of the appeal, the original claimant had expired on 05.02.2021. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon reported in (2022) 13 SCC 406, no further enhancement is permitted under this head. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head of Pain, shock & suffering is maintained.
Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined
15. Perusal of the impugned judgment transpires that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of Attendant Charges. It is on record that owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, the original claimant has become paralytic and both his legs have become paralyzed. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is hereby awarded under the head of Attendant Charges.
16. Though the original claimant has become paralytic and he has been deprived of the basis amenities of life, however, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of Loss of amenities of life. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is hereby awarded under the head of Loss of amenities of life.
17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimant/appellant shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sr. Head Amount in rupees.
No.
1 Future Loss of income. 3,63,000/-
2 Transportation & special (+) 20,000/-
diet
3 Actual loss of income. (+) 30,000/-
4 Pain, shock & sufferings. (+) 15,000/-
5 Medical expenses. (+) 5,60,000/-
6 Attendant Charges (+) 50,000/-
7 Loss of amenities of (+) 50,000/-
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
life.
8 Total Compensation 10,88,000/-
Compensation awarded by
9 the learned Tribunal vide (-) 7,62,000/-
its impugned judgment and
award.
10 Enhanced amount of 3,26,000/-
Compensation
18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the
appellants herein shall be entitled for an additional
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,26,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. The said rate of interest is maintained; accordingly, the appellants shall be entitled to 9% of interest per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
19. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent.
20. The learned Tribunal has apportioned liability between the tortfeasors, therefore, the tortfeasors are directed to satisfy the impugned judgment and award in proportion to their respective liability as determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, both Insurance Companies i.e., Respondent Nos.3 & 6 are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest, within a period of six weeks Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2851/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined from today, in the same proportion as determined by the learned Tribunal. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the appellants (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
21. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
22. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN..
Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 05:55:31 IST 2026