IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 406 of 2015 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

KESHAVBHAI KURJIBHAI VORA Versus PRAKASHBHAI NATWARLAL TERAIYA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS. MASUMI NANAVATY FOR MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 09/03/2026

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate for the appellant-

original claimant and learned advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavaty appearing for Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company. The rule of admission issued by this Court in the captioned appeal, is reported to have been duly served upon the respondent nos.1 and 2; however, no appearance has been entered on their behalf.

[2.] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”), at the instance of the original claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 20.10.2014 and the consequential decree dated 11.11.2014 (hereinafter referred as “the impugned judgment and award”) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) at Gondal in M.A.C.P. No.114 of 2006. The Tribunal has thus, partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding him entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs.10,01,618/- from original opponents nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally, with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual realization. The Tribunal has thereby not entertained the entire claim of Rs. 20 Lakhs with 18% interest as prayed for by the claimant. Hence, the captioned appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation under various heads.

[3.] Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate for the appellant, has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the issue of contributory negligence determined by the Tribunal to the extent of 10% attributed towards the claimant as well as on the quantum of compensation being determined on lower side.

[3.1] It is submitted that the learned Judge without there being any evidence of contributory negligence, has held the claimant 10% negligent, which has consequently led to the reduction of the amount of compensation determined. It is submitted that despite the claimant having established that the charge-sheet was filed solely against the driver of the Innova car and the driver of the car having not entered the witness box, the Tribunal ought to have drawn adverse inference against the driver of the car as solely negligent.

[3.2] Secondly, on the aspect of quantum of compensation, learned advocate has submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the cogent material in the nature of Village Form No.8A and 7/12 abstract being produced on record from Exh.36 to Exh.41, to consider the additional income of the claimant from the agricultural source. To re-appreciate the future loss of income, it was pleaded that prior to the accident, the claimant was engaged as a Supervisor in the Mill, run by partnership firm and used to earn monthly salary of Rs. 4,500/-. The said fact has been proved by the claimant by leading evidence in the nature of salary certificate at Exh.53 as well as the extract of ledger account reflecting the expense towards the salary of the claimant at Exh.54 and Exh.55. Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, in light of the evidence of the claimant, who has been examined at Exh.45, though the Tribunal has accepted the case of the claimant of earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of the accide