IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3686 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

MUKESHBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI ROJASRA Versus HAKUBHAI GELABHAI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 10/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 21.08.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Rajkot, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.524 of 2014, the appellant – original claimant preferred present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2) Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellant –

original Claimant and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned Advocate for respondent no.2. Though served, none appears for rest of the respondents.

3) It is the case of the appellant that on 18.01.2014, the appellant and one Kurjibhai were going on motorcycle which was driven by Kurjibhai and the appellant was sitting as a pillion rider and when they reached near Village Kalasar, at that time, one Eicher tempo bearing No. GJ- 13-T-9870 came in excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the appellant. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous fracture injuries on his right leg and other parts of the body. Therefore, the appellant has filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,28,068/- against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not considering monthly income as per the minimum wage prevailing at the time of accident and not awarded any amount under the head of future prospective income. Further, the Tribunal has also committed an error by allowing only Rs.22,000/- under the head of pain, shock and sufferings, which ought to have been granted at least Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, he has requested to enhance the compensation amount in the appeal.

5) Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavaty for Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and no interference is required to call for. He has also submitted that, without any proof of income of the appellant, the Tribunal has assessed Rs.6100/- monthly income which is more than the rate of minimum wage at the time of accident.

With these submissions, he has requested to dismissed the appeal.

6) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the appeal is filed only on the aspect of quantum and liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross-objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of quantum only. Alleged incident is not not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant has filed an Affidavit at Exh:27, FIR at Exh:35, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh:36, Injury certificate at Exh:40-41, Disability certificate at Exh:45, medical bills and expenses at Exhs:58, 60 and 61. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held both Eicher tempo and motorcycle negligent to the extent of 70 % and 30 % respectively, relying on the decisions of the Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC reported in AI