IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1992 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI ==========================================================

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

MUKESHBHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR (KOLI)

Versus RAJENDRASINH VIRSINH MAKWANA & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) 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 MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 13/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.428 of 2011, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,03,200/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal is that on 19.03.2011, The claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-5-AH-325 and was going to his home at Village Kharachiya from Lakhapar at about 8:00 p.m., in the meantime, a rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-3-Z-4625 came from the wrong side at an excessive speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without following traffic rules, and collided with the claimant’s motorcycle. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and had to undergo medical treatment. Therefore, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opponents.

3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4. Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that the learned Tribunal had not considered the future prospects of the claimant. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 28 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal could have added 40% to the monthly income of the claimant on account of future prospects of the claimant. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded the meager amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering and special diet, attendant charges and transportation. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that at the time of accident, the license of the driver of the offending vehicle had expired, therefore, the learned Tribunal could have passed the order of pay and recover. However, the learned Tribunal had exonerated the Insurance Company from satisfying the award. He further submitted that the claimant is the third party. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have passed the order of pay and recover.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award and the learned Tribunal awarded the just compensation. Learned advocate for the Insurance Company further submitted that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license, therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from satisfying the impugned judgment and award.

Therefore, the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that in the captioned appeal, the claimant has not challenged the accident, manner of occurrence of accident, negligence, age, income and functional disability. The claimant has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum as well as exoneration of the Insurance Company from satisfying the im