IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1649 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE ==========================================================

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

DHARMENDARASINH CHANDARASINH JADEJA Versus DHARMENDARASINH MOHANSINH DEVDHARA & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 18/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi learned advocate on record for the appellant. Ms. Richa Shah has appeared on behalf of Mr. Alkesh N. Shah learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

2. The record indicates that the notice of admission of Appeal is duly served upon respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle involved. However, he has chosen not to appear and contest the present Appeal. With the able assistance of learned advocates appearing on record, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing.

3. The present Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 at the instance of the original claimant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.06.2014, passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharuch in MACP No. 216 of 2010. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has though partly allowed the Claim Petition preferred by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding him entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs. 3,12,535/- with interest @ of 9% per annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual realisation from the original opponents jointly and severally, however, has refused to grant entire claim of Rs. 5 lakhs as prayed for. Hence, the present appeal praying for enhancement of award amount to the tune of Rs. 11 lakhs with proportionate cost and interest.

4. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the submissions made, this Court vide order dated 21.12.2015, had admitted the Appeal. The Record and Proceedings were called for.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground of quantum of compensation being determined on lower side. The attention of this Court was invited to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal vide answering the issue of quantum of compensation. It was submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error while awarding lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards the loss of future income. It was submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the claimant has suffered permanent disability due to the multiple fractures sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.

6. Reliance was placed on the disability certificate of the claimant produced on record to point out that apart from multiple fractures sustained in both the hands, the left leg of the claimant has been shortened by one inch. It was further submitted that because of the aforesaid injuries the functional efficiency of the claimant has been vitally affected. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has though appreciated the aforesaid disability certificate in light of the evidence of medical expert Dr. R.L. Rana who has been examined as witness at Exh. 30, however, has fixed the permanent disability of the claimant as 17% of body as a whole. Learned advocate has further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the functional disability; the nature of injuries in light of the avocation of the claimant.

Being engaged as a Senior Librarian in GNFC and considering the nature of work and the disability sustained, the Tribunal ought to have drawn inference about the earning efficiency of the claimant being compromised. However, t