Gujarat High Court
Archanaben Prakashbhai Joshi vs Manu Nagjibhai Parmar on 4 September, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2899/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2899 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ARCHANABEN PRAKASHBHAI JOSHI & ORS.
Versus
MANU NAGJIBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act is filed by the appellant-original claimant against the impugned judgment and award dated 21.12.2018 passed in M.A.C.P. No.1680 of 2004 by the Chairman, MACT (Main), Vadodara.
2. The appeal arises out of an accident where on 30.04.2004 around 2.45 p.m., the appellant along with her pillion seated son riding the Kinetic Honda bearing No. GJ-
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 21:26:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2899/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined 6BB-6121 was heading towards Vadodara Railway Station from Vadodara Central S.T. Depot on her correct side of the road. Meanwhile, the driver of the offending vehicle S.T. Bus bearing registration No. GJ-18V-7335 came in rash and negligent manner near Sanjivani Hospital and dashed from behind the appellant's Kinetic Honda and as a result, the appellant fell on the road and skidded upto 30 ft.
3. Pending appeal, the legal heirs were brought on record by order dated 01.03.2021 in Civil Application No.1 of 2021. As the party was unrepresented, advocate notice was issued which is reportedly served, but none has appeared so far also appeal is pending since long after its admission by order dated 16.07.2019 on the ground of income of the claimants lower than minimum wages. The appeal is therefore, taken up for hearing with the assistance of learned advocate for respondent No.2. Learned advocate has ably assisted this Court in connection with the claim.
4. From the pleadings, it is the case of the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have considered her income more than Rs.3,500/- per month on two grounds that it was lower than the Minimum Wages Act and also over and above, the income out of tuition, she was also a licensed agent of LIC and therefore, self employed.
4.1 It is also pleaded that considering the age of the claimant at 36 years, addition of 40% towards prospective income ought to have been considered.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 21:26:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2899/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined
5. It is the case of the respondent that negligence of the claimant also required to be considered. Moreover, in the evidence of the claimant herself she has deposed that her income out of tuition class was Rs.3,500/- and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income.
6. The Court has taken into consideration the submissions made by learned advocate for respondent No.2 and perused the documents placed on record.
7. The facts are not much in dispute, particularly regarding the manner in which the accident took place and the injury sustained in this regard. The Court has considered the evidence of the injured claimant herself at Exh.24 and also the medical evidence including deposition of the treating doctor at Exh.38. The Court therefore, does not find any reason to differ on the finding of facts given by the Tribunal.
8. The deposition of the claimant regarding her income at Exh.24 refer to income earned out of tuition and as LIC Agent. The Tribunal has accepted the source of income however, so far as income of Rs.3,500/- per month is only out of the tuition income which alone is taken by the Tribunal, but no income is assessed out of her work as LIC Agent. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that over and above the income of Rs.3,500/- per month of the tuition, the claimant is also earning income out of LIC Agent as she has registered license of IRDA. Therefore, the Court finds that an amount of Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.3,500/- be assessed as monthly income.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 21:26:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2899/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined
9. The future loss of income therefore, is assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month x 12=54,000/- per annum. As per the decision of the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, being age of 36 years, multiplied by 15 and 69% disability comes to Rs.5,58,900/-.
9.1 Similarly, the loss of actual income due to inability to attend her work due to injury and medical treatment would come to Rs.27,000/-.
10. The Court also finds that the compensation awarded under the heads as under are also on lower side.
(a) Pain, Shock and Suffering-The Tribunal granted Rs.50,000/-. The Apex Court in case of Sidram v/s.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance C. Ltd, reported in, 2023 (3) SCC 439 has considered Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, where the injuries are grievous. The injuries as discussed by the Tribunal is definitely of grievous in nature and resulted into severe disabilities.
(b) Similarly, for special diet, transportation and attendant, in place of Rs.50,000/-, the Court is inclined to grant Rs.1,00,000/- and loss of amenities to Rs.1,00,000/- in place of Rs.50,000/- and lastly an amount of Rs.96,000/- towards the loss of consortium (two dependents)
11. Accordingly, the Court holds that the appellant is entitled to just compensation in a tabular form as under:-
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 21:26:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2899/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined Sr. Particular Amount (Rs.) No. 1 Future loss of income 5,58,900/- 2 Medical Expenses 1,39,530/- 3 Actual Earning Loss 27,000/- 4 Pain, Shock and Suffering 1,00,000/- 5 Special Diet, Transportation and 1,00,000/-
Attendant 6 Loss of Amenities 1,00,000/- 7 Loss of Consortium 96,000/-
(48000x2) Total 11,21,430/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.3,76,200/-
12. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to aforesaid extent. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed:
[A]. The present appeal is partly allowed accordingly in above terms.
[B]. The opponents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.3,76,200/- from the date of claim petition till its realisation before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
[C]. 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' / RTGS, after proper verification Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 21:26:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2899/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined and after following due procedure.
[D]. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the Courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with the Rules.
[E]. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
13. The Court fees to be calculated in accordance with the enhance compensation now granted. The present appeal is partly allowed accordingly in above terms.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (NSSG,J) SIDDHARTH Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 21:26:17 IST 2025