IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2165 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

HIRALAL @ HIRABHAI UKABHAI MAKAWANA Versus SOHANSINDH PIRUSINDH & ORS.

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

Appearance:

NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ==============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 07.11.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.II), Gandhidham - Kachchh (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.145 of 2021, 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" for short).

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

original Claimant and learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak, for the respondent no.3 – Insurance Company. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are duly served but did not appear before this Court. Perused the original record and proceedings.

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

28.05.2021 the appellant (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “claimant / injured” for short) was going on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-12-DJ-1121 to highway to collect wreckage and when the claimant reached at the place of accident, the claimant stopped his motorcycle on the side of the road and he was standing beside the motorcycle, at that time the opponent no.1 came with his Trailer No.GJ-12-AZ-7764 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle and claimant from behind and thereby caused the accident. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries. Thereafter, FIR No.11993001210/2021, was registered with Samakhiyali Police Station, against the opponent no.1. 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.

4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by not awarding addition towards future prospect on the income of the appellant. He has further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in assessing 40% disablement body as a whole despite there is amputation and as the appellant was working as a labourer the Tribunal ought to have considered 100% functional disability of the appellant. He has further submitted that the Tribunal also committed error in awarding meagre amount towards non – pecuniary loss and also erred by not awarding any amount towards loss of amenities and expenses for artificial limb. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

5) Learned Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence produced on record and awarded just and proper compensation. She has further submitted that the evidence tendered by the claimant is not believable as the Doctor himself has admitted that 31% disability for body as a whole and the certificate is nothing but ready to use. In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that body as whole disablement is 31%. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the appeal.

6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties 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 (1