IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4444 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

IKBAL SALIM KEVAR Versus JUSAB ALADINA BAMBHA & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR.MINHAJ M SHAIKH(6847) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ============================================

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–original claimant, against the judgment and award dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in MAC Petition No.101 of 2016.

2) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3) The brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.2016, the minor injured Ikbal Salim Kevar (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “injured / minor / claimant” for short) was standing by side of the road and at that time the driver of Bolero bearing Reg. No.GJ-12-AV-5859, came in rash and negligent manner and hit the minor. Due to which the minor sustained injuries which resulted into permanent partial disablement. Therefore, the minor injured through his natural guardian and father had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition.

4) The learned Advocate Mr. M. M. Shaikh, for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the injured which ought to have assessed as Rs.20,000/-. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has consider that the overall disability of the injured is around 67.53% but failed to appreciate that 100% non working capability of the injured has been reduced. He has further submitted that meage amount is awarded towards other heads which is required to be enhanced. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

5) Learned Advocate Mr. R. D. Mehta, has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence produced on record and properly awarded the compensation. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has properly assessed cumulative disability at 67.53% which does not call for any interference. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the appeal has been filed on the ground of quantum and disability and so far as the factum of accident, negligence, liability, involvement of the vehicle and coverage of the policy are not in dispute in the present appeal. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, has concluded that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Bolero bearing Reg. No.Gj-12-AV-5859.

7) So far as the question of quantum is concerned, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the injured at Rs.36,000/- per annum. It is needless to state that even in the case of a minor, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1070 the Tribunal or the High Court, while dealing with a case involving a child who has suffered injuries or has died, is required to assess loss of income on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State at the relevant point of time. There