1. Appeal under Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation for amputation of leg in bus accident. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
Jigishaben Maheshbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Sipai Mohammadkhan Rasulkhan – Respondent
R/First Appeal No. 1327 of 2022
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Robin Prasad
For the Respondents: KV Gadhia, Vrunda C Shah
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Robin Prasad
For the Respondents: KV Gadhia, Vrunda C Shah
Important Points
Compensation for personal injuries must be just and fair, taking into account the degree of deprivation and loss, with an empathetic approach by the Tribunal, including compensation for loss of matrimonial prospects.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: S.173
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Compensation for personal injuries - Quantum of compensation - Amputation of left leg below knee - Claimant, a young PTC student aged 19 years - Tribunal awarded Rs.11,96,441/- - Appeal for enhancement - Enhancement of compensation under heads of pain, shock and suffering, special diet and transportation, loss of amenities, future medical expenses, and loss of matrimonial prospects - Principles of just compensation - Need for empathetic approach by Tribunal - Reliance on Govind Yadav, Sarla Verma, Kajal, Master Ayush, Sidram, Pappu Deo Yadav. (Paras 7-15)
(B) Compensation - Assessment - Heads of damages - Pain, shock and suffering enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-; Special diet, attendant and transportation enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/-; Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-; Future medical expenses enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-; Loss of matrimonial prospects awarded Rs.3,00,000/- (nil earlier) - Total compensation enhanced from Rs.2,35,000/- to Rs.9,50,000/-. (Paras 13-16)
Facts of the case:
On 05.01.2011, the appellant, a 19-year-old PTC student, was alighting from an AMTS bus when the driver drove in a rash and negligent manner, causing her to fall and sustain severe injuries, resulting in amputation of her left leg below the knee. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.11,96,441/-. Aggrieved by the quantum, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately compensated the appellant for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, future medical expenses, and had failed to award any compensation for loss of matrimonial prospects. Relying on principles of just compensation and the need for an empathetic approach, the Court enhanced the compensation under various heads and awarded additional amount of Rs.7,15,000/- with proportionate costs and interest.
Issues: The main issues were whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and adequate considering the nature and extent of the injury, amputation of left leg, and whether the appellant was entitled to compensation under the head of loss of matrimonial prospects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compensation for personal injuries must be just and fair, taking into account the degree of deprivation and loss caused. Courts should adopt a sensitive and empathetic approach, recognizing the physical, mental, and emotional trauma suffered by the victim. Loss of matrimonial prospects is a legitimate head of compensation for a young unmarried woman who suffers permanent disability affecting her marriage prospects.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
(B) Compensation - Assessment - Heads of damages - Pain, shock and suffering enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-; Special diet, attendant and transportation enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/-; Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-; Future medical expenses enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-; Loss of matrimonial prospects awarded Rs.3,00,000/- (nil earlier) - Total compensation enhanced from Rs.2,35,000/- to Rs.9,50,000/-. (Paras 13-16)
Facts of the case:
On 05.01.2011, the appellant, a 19-year-old PTC student, was alighting from an AMTS bus when the driver drove in a rash and negligent manner, causing her to fall and sustain severe injuries, resulting in amputation of her left leg below the knee. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.11,96,441/-. Aggrieved by the quantum, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately compensated the appellant for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, future medical expenses, and had failed to award any compensation for loss of matrimonial prospects. Relying on principles of just compensation and the need for an empathetic approach, the Court enhanced the compensation under various heads and awarded additional amount of Rs.7,15,000/- with proportionate costs and interest.
Issues: The main issues were whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and adequate considering the nature and extent of the injury, amputation of left leg, and whether the appellant was entitled to compensation under the head of loss of matrimonial prospects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compensation for personal injuries must be just and fair, taking into account the degree of deprivation and loss caused. Courts should adopt a sensitive and empathetic approach, recognizing the physical, mental, and emotional trauma suffered by the victim. Loss of matrimonial prospects is a legitimate head of compensation for a young unmarried woman who suffers permanent disability affecting her marriage prospects.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over adequacy of compensation for loss of limb, future prospects, and pain and suffering. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Appeal partly allowed; compensation enhanced with proportionate costs and interest. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. How to assess income of an injured student with no documentary proof for future loss of income?
Tribunal should consider prevalent minimum wages at the time of accident and apply appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. What principles govern compensation for non-pecuniary damages in cases of serious permanent disability?
Courts must award substantial compensation considering lifelong deprivation, mental trauma, and loss of amenities, not token damages, with empathy. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. Is a young female victim entitled to compensation for loss of matrimonial prospects due to amputation?
Yes, the Tribunal erred in not awarding such compensation; an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 is appropriate. (Para 14 )
ORAL JUDGMENT
1). Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 12.12.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.537/2011, the appellant – original claimant preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for enhancement of compensation.
2). Heard Mr. Robin Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Vrunda Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr.K.V.Gadhia, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Rule unserved qua respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 05.01.2011, the appellant was travelling in AMTS Bus bearing No.GJ-01-BV-8728 from Lal Darwaja to her home and at Malav Talav, when the appellant was going down from front side of the bus, the driver of the bus driven his bus in rash and negligent manner. Due to which, the appellant was fallen down from bus and front wheel of the bus ran over her left leg. As a result, the appellant got serious injuries and her left leg below knee was amputated. In this regard, FIR came to be filed at Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad. Subsequently, the claim petition was filed by the appellant to get compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.11,96,441/- along with cost and interest @ 9 % p.a.
4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the documents produced on record and has not correctly assessed the income of the victim, who has suffered severe bodily disablement. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of marriage prospects, even though the victim, being a young lady, had to undergo amputation of her left leg. However, a meager amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded under the head of pain, shock, and suffering. He has further contended that the evidence on record, including the certificates issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon, remained unchallenged. These documents clearly indicate that the artificial leg requires replacement every 3 to 5 years. It is argued that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of the victim’s co-student, who was pursuing PTC with her, regarding her income. Therefore, considering the economic loss suffered due to her physical disability, interference of this Court may be called for for enhancement of compensation.
5) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has opposed the present appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is contended that, at the time of accident, the appellant was a student of PTC course and, even after the accident, she was able to continue her studies. Therefore, there is no loss of future prospects, as she can still pursue a career as a teacher and earn accordingly. Hence, no adverse effect on her earning capacity or functional disability should be considered, considering nature of the work as she would be required to perform as a teacher. It is further submitted that the amputation of the leg is below the knee, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 50%, which is just and proper.
6) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, the factum of the accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence is also undisputed, as the driver of the offending AMTS bus has been held solely responsible. Therefore, the present appeal is filed to the limited aspect of quantum. To substantiate the claim, the appellant has tendered her deposition at Exh. 28, the deposition of Dr. S. G. Patel at Exh. 35, affidavits of two witnesses at Exhs. 87 and 93, the disability certificate at Exh. 36, injury certificate at Exh. 40, and medical bills at Exhs. 42 to 7
