IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4287 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

KANJI VANKAJI RATHOD Versus VALABHAI HIRABHAI MATA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 5 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 03/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.389 of 2015.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for the respondent No.1, 3 and 4.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 28.04.2015, the appellant was proceeding towards Mundra as a driver of Truck No. GJ-12- AT-5611. At about 5:30 a.m., when the truck reached near Radhey Hotel, between Bhadreshwar and Hatdi, it collided with the rear side of Truck No. GJ-12-X-1838, which was parked on the road without any parking signal or warning. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries and suffered permanent and total disability. It is further the case of the appellant that respondent No.2 had recovered an additional premium of Rs.50/- towards legal liability for a paid driver, thereby covering the risk of the appellant, and hence, he is entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident..

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the documents produced on record and did not correctly assess the income of the victim, who has suffered severe bodily disability. It is contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the prevailing minimum wages while assessing the income of the truck driver, though the testimony in that regard remained unrebutted and unchallenged. It is further submitted that the appellant has suffered 30% permanent disability and that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. Therefore, just and proper compensation is required to be awarded. Considering the loss suffered due to his physical disability, interference by this Court is called for for enhancement of compensation.

5. On the contrary, learned advocates appearing for the respondents have strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It was contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in light of the decisions in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635

7. It appears that opponent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been exonerated on the ground of self-negligence on the part of the claimant. Neither the claimant nor opponent No. 3 – Insurance Company has assailed the said finding by filing any appeal challenging the impugned judgment. Therefore, no further discussion is required in that regard, and the finding qua exoneration of opponent Nos. 3 to 5 is hereby upheld.

8. It appears that the involvement of the vehicle, coverage of insurance, and negligence are not in dispute, as the controversy is limited only to the question of quantum. Hence, the appeal is required to be decided wi