IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 263 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================

RAMDEVSINH SHAKTISINH Versus DEVUBHAI KAVABHAI & ORS.

============================================

Appearance:

MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DECEASED LITIGANT for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MR NAGESH C SOOD(1928) for the Defendant(s) No. 5 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,4 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3 ============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 11/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Morbi (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal"), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.93 of 2016, the appellant – original claimant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act").

2) On 04.02.2026, this Court has passed specific order that on the next date of hearing no leave or sick note shall be entertained. Today, the matter is called out twice in the first session and twice in the second session, though the learned Advocate for the respondent no.5 remained absent.

3) Heard learned Advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera, for the appellant –

original Claimant.

4) It is the case of the appellant – original claimant that on

07.01.2004 the appellant (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “claimant / injured” for short) was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle driven by the opponent no.4 at moderate speed and when the said motorcycle reached near the place of accident at that point of time the opponent rickshaw which was being driven in rash and negligent manner came on wrong side and rammed into the motorcycle due to which the appellant sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the appellant had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition.

5) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by assessing only Rs.3,333/- income of the appellant despite the fact that the appellant owned agricultural lands and tractor and was doing agricultural activities using modern technique. She has further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in not awarding addition towards future prospect on the income of the appellant. She has further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in assessing 30% disablement body as a whole despite the fact that he suffered 50.81% disability and after operating several times he left with 3 inch of bone loss and effect of paralysis on arm and looking to his injuries the Doctor certified him disabled to the extent of 50.81% however looking to the injuries and occupation the Tribunal ought to have considered 100% functional disability of the appellant. She has further submitted that the Tribunal also committed error in awarding meagre amount towards non – pecuniary loss without considering the period of hospitalization of around 49 days and nature of injuries to the appellant. Hence, she has requested to allow the present appeal.

6) Having heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence. The claimant has tendered the affidavit at Exhibit 41, wherein, all the facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief-

examination and supported the claim petition and relied on the FIR at Exhibit 46, panchnama at Exhibit