IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1546 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

INDUBEN RAVJIBHAI PATEL Versus PRABHATBHAI DHULABHAI VAGHARI & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 17/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Sheth for the appellant. Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2- Insurance Company. The notice of admission of appeal is reported to have been duly served upon the respondent no.1, being the driver of the offending vehicle. Despite the service of notice, he has chosen not to contest the present appeal or to enter appearance. With the able assistance of learned advocates appearing on record for the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

2. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the original claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 6^th of May 2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (Main) Kheda, Nadiad, in MACP No.315 of 2007. By the said judgment and award, though the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, holding him entitled to recover sum of Rs.2,11,200/- with 6% interest and proportionate costs from the original opponents jointly and severally, however, has refused to entertain the entire claim of compensation of sum of Rs.3 lakhs as prayed for. Hence the present appeal, praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.88,800/- with interest and proportionate costs. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the submissions made, this Court vide order dated 3^rd of August 2015 had admitted the appeal.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has challenged the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while determining the quantum of compensation, more particularly, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain, shock, and suffering on lower side. It was submitted that the cogent material in the nature of medical case papers has been brought on record. On bare appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, it clearly indicates that the claimant had suffered multiple fracture injuries due to motor vehicle accident. The claimant was aged 42 years and was earning her income by attending household work and animal husbandry. It was submitted that considering the nature of work which she used to attend prior to the accident and the nature of injuries sustained, she is facing difficulty in doing daily activities. She is unable to walk long distance and is unable to attend heavy work. It was submitted that the accident had taken place on 10^th of February 2007 and when she was examined by the ortho surgeon on 12^th of April 2008, the medical expert had opined that she has still continued with the disability inasmuch as she is unable to squat or sit cross-leg. Referring to the disability certificate produced on record at Exhibit 36, learned advocate had submitted that the claimant was operated thrice. With such material on record, he has urged this Court to reasonably enhance the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock, and suffering.

Learned advocate had further fairly submitted that the income of Rs.3,000/- has rightly been determined by the Tribunal. However, he has urged this Court to consider prospective rise of the income for the purpose of assessment of future loss of income. Reliance was placed on the landmark decision of the Hon'ble