Gujarat High Court
Ikbal Salim Kevar vs Jusab Aladina Bambha on 3 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4444 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
============================================
IKBAL SALIM KEVAR
Versus
JUSAB ALADINA BAMBHA & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MR.MINHAJ M SHAIKH(6847) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-original claimant, against the judgment and award dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in MAC Petition No.101 of 2016.
2) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3) The brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.2016, the minor Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined injured Ikbal Salim Kevar (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "injured / minor / claimant" for short) was standing by side of the road and at that time the driver of Bolero bearing Reg. No.GJ-12-AV-5859, came in rash and negligent manner and hit the minor. Due to which the minor sustained injuries which resulted into permanent partial disablement. Therefore, the minor injured through his natural guardian and father had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The learned Advocate Mr. M. M. Shaikh, for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the injured which ought to have assessed as Rs.20,000/-. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has consider that the overall disability of the injured is around 67.53% but failed to appreciate that 100% non working capability of the injured has been reduced. He has further submitted that meage amount is awarded towards other heads which is required to be enhanced. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate Mr. R. D. Mehta, has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence produced on record and properly Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined awarded the compensation. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has properly assessed cumulative disability at 67.53% which does not call for any interference. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.
6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the appeal has been filed on the ground of quantum and disability and so far as the factum of accident, negligence, liability, involvement of the vehicle and coverage of the policy are not in dispute in the present appeal. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, has concluded that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Bolero bearing Reg. No.Gj-12-AV-5859.
7) So far as the question of quantum is concerned, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the injured at Rs.36,000/- per annum. It is needless to state that even in the case of a minor, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1070, the Tribunal or the High Court, while dealing with a case Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined involving a child who has suffered injuries or has died, is required to assess loss of income on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State at the relevant point of time. Therefore, as the accident was occurred on 23.02.2016 and the rate of minimum wages of that time is Rs.7,444/-, the income of the minor injured is required to be enhanced and reassessed as Rs.7,450/- per month.
8) Further, considering the fact that even in the injury case which has resulted into permanent partial disablement, the future prospectus can be taken into consideration as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered 40% addition towards future prospectus and the same is just and proper.
9) Considering the nature of injury and age of 5 years of the minor injured at the time of accident and has sustained the partial permanent disability and other consequential losses of said injury, the injured is entitled for getting the compensation in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, wherein, it has been held that the Tribunal shall Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined award the compensation very conservatively keeping in mind the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation which can be termed as "just compensation" as insured / injured claimant has to face the consequences throughout his life and that should not be any token damages. Even, in the case of Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, relying on the decision in the case of Kajal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court by observing in paragraph No.7 as under:-
"7. It was also argued that in a judgment reported as Kajal v. Jagdish Chand2, the injured was a 12 years old girl who had suffered an injury to the extent that her IQ got less than 20% as compared to a child of her age and the medical board had assessed her social age to be only of a 9-months' old child. This Court had recognized that Schedule II of the Act could be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. This Court in the aforesaid case held as under (SCC pp. 419, 421 & 426, paras 6, 12 & 27) "6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, the compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages.
xxx xxx xxx
12. The assesment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made.
1) xxx xxx xxx
27. One factor which must be kept in mind while assessing the compensation in a case like the present one is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the courts or the Tribunals assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding the compensation. While awarding this amount, we are not only taking the physical disability but also the mental disability and various other factors. This child will remain bedridden for life. Her mental age will be that of a nine-month-old child. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby. We are dealing with a girl who will physically become a woman but will mentally remain a 9-month-old child. This girl will miss out playing with her friends. She cannot communicate; she cannot enjoy the pleasures of life; she cannot even be amused by watching cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of childhood, the excitement of youth; the pleasures of a marital life; she cannot have children who she can love, let alone grandchildren. She will have no pleasure. Her's is a vegetable existence. Therefore, we feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined even after taking a very conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child should be at least Rs 15,00,000."
10) Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case relating to a minor has considered the multiplier of 18. As the learned Tribunal has also relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal (supra), and applied the multiplier of 18 the same is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court.
11) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its decision in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar reported in (2022) 13 SCC 790 has observed and held in paragraph 113 as under:
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21 of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim."
12) Now coming to the aspect of disablement, the father of the claimant has deposed on oath that his minor son had sustained hemorrhage on head and fracture injuries over various parts of his body and he had went into coma and he was not bale to breach independently and even he is not able to open lid of left eye and therefore he has adverse effect on his eye sight also. The appellant has also examined Dr. Tarek A. Khatri, Neurosurgeon at Exhibit 34, who has produced Disability Certificate at Exhibit 35, which reveals that the claimant had undergone tracheostomy during hospitalization, he had developed seizure and was on ventilator support. He had left basal ganglia bleed with ICH on CT Scan during hospitalization. He is having difficulty in walking, left eye decreased movement and decreased intelligence. His IQ as measured by Dr. Gaurang Joshi on 12.12.2019 came to at 51. Looking towards his injuries and examination along with IQ report disability of 50% for IQ, 25% for Rt. Hemi-paresis and 20% for Lt. 3 rd nerve palsy and the Tribunal has assessed disability at 67.53% body as a whole. It is pertinent to note that in injury cases while awarding just compensation the learned Tribunal has to consider the functional Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined disability and effect of disablement qua in relation to avocation and profession of the claimant. The physical disability and functional disability are all together different and the learned Tribunal has to ascertain the functional disability and Doctor has nothing to do with the functional disability. In this regard reference is required to be made from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar (supra), in paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 reads as under:
8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation.
Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined purpose of claiming compensation.
9. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)."
13) Thus while assessing permanent disablement of the claimant the learned Tribunal ought to have considered on the actual earning capacity in following three steps as under :
(1) The Tribunal has to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability.
(2) The Tribunal has to ascertain the claimant's avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident.
(3) The Tribunal has to find out whether the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on or whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
14) Further, in the case on hand, as discussed in earlier part and Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined also in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and Anr, reported in 2024 INSC 963, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring Kajal (supra) more particularly in paragraphs 26 and 27 and in the case of Master Ayush (supra) more particularly paragraph 14, the determination of damages in personal injury cases is not easy. The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation. In this regard paragraphs 23 and 24 of the case of Kajal (supra) is required to be considered. Herein the age of minor is only 5 years and he will miss out the enjoyment with the friends, he cannot enjoy the pleasure of life and also miss out fun of childhood.
15) In view of above as well as considering the medical evidence produced at Exhibits 34 and 35, and the fact that the injured is not able to control over his limb and facing many difficulties in his day to day activities and also not able to open lid of left eye and his eye sight is also affected and he is not able to grip things properly and his memory power is decreased. He is also having difficulty in walking, movement of left eye is decreased and decreased intelligence, this Court is of the considered view that as the injured is bedridden and unable to perform his routine activities and requires life time attendant, 100% functional Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined disability is required to be considered in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343. Accordingly, disability of the injured is reassessed at 100% functional disability.
16) Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as Rs.7,450/- per month, adding 40% future prospects, the monthly income would come to Rs.10,430/- (Rs.7,450 + Rs.2,980). Thereafter, applying the multiplier of 18, the future loss of income would be Rs.10,430 × 12 × 18 x 100% /100 = Rs.22,52,880/-.
17) So far as pain, shock and suffering are concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-. In view of the ratio laid down in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Murlidhara v. R. Subbulakshmi, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3385, and Reshma v. Dajiba Krishna Lad and Another, reported in 2025 INSC 1320, the amount awarded under the said head is required to be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- from Rs.40,000/-.
18) It appears that Rs.1,90,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses by the Tribunal, which required to be enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. The appellant is also entitled for Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities instead of Rs.50,000/-
towards discomfort, inconvenience, loss of marriage. Similarly, the amount of Rs.15,000/- is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and rich diet.
19) So far as the attendant charge is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- however considering the 5 years of age of the claimant, nature of injury and disablement today he is approx. 15 years old and even considering the multiplier of 18 in light of Kajal (supra) while awarding the attendant charges the application of multiplier method can be taken into consideration. Even considering the fact that he would require lifetime attendant for his routine work and calculating the charge of attendant as Rs.6,000/- per month an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- is required to be awarded towards attendant charges considering the peculiar facts of the case on hand.
20) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to compensation which is reassessed and computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court Tribunal Future loss of income Rs.6,12,000/- Rs.22,52,880/-
including additional amount of Rs.16,40,880/-
Pain, shock and Rs.40,000/- Rs.5,00,000/-
suffering including additional
amount of Rs.4,60,000/-
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
undefined
Transportation & rich Rs.15,000/- Rs.50,000/-
diet including additional
amount of Rs.35,000/-
Attendant charges Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,00,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.14,00,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.1,90,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.10,000/-
Discomfort, Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
inconvenience loss of including additional
marriage prospect / amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities
Total compensation Rs.10,07,000/- Rs.46,52,880/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.36,45,880/-
21) Hence, present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and
award is hereby modified to Rs.46,52,880/- from
Rs.10,07,000/-. The appellant would be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.36,45,880/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondents shall deposit said additional amount before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
22) Considering the age of the injured / claimant, the learned Tribunal is directed to invest the aforesaid amount in the fixed deposit at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The guardian / next friend of the claimant be allowed to withdraw Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4444/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined the expenses of the daily routine requirements and further medical treatment from the income of the interest. The release of interest amount shall be on quarterly basis and the fixed deposit shall be renewed from time to time. However, the Tribunal to ensure that the money of the injured / claimant is not frittered away.
23) Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
24) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri Mar 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:04:10 IST 2026