Gujarat High Court Allows Appeals by Injured Claimants in Motor Accident Case — Enhances Compensation by Applying Correct Multiplier and Granting Future Prospects. Multiplier of 18 applied for 30-year-old claimant with permanent disability under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 02:52:05

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The present appeals arise from a common judgment and award dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod, in MAC Petition Nos.255 of 2019 and 256 of 2019. The appellants, original claimants, filed appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. On 01.04.2019, the claimants were standing at Chakaliya Chokdi, Godi Road, waiting for transport, when a Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-20-V-9564, driven rashly and negligently, dashed into them, causing serious injuries. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000 in MACP No.255/2019 and Rs. 2,50,000 in MACP No.256/2019. The claimants challenged the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 5 instead of 18 for a 30-year-old claimant, failed to grant future prospects, and awarded inadequate amounts for pain and suffering, attendant charges, and conveyance. The High Court, per Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, allowed the appeals. The Court held that the multiplier should be based on the age of the injured as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, and applied multiplier 18 for the 30-year-old claimant. It also granted 40% future prospects following Pranay Sethi, enhanced pain and suffering to Rs. 50,000, attendant and conveyance to Rs. 10,000, and increased interest rate to 7.5% per annum. The total compensation in MACP No.255/2019 was enhanced from Rs. 2,25,000 to Rs. 5,76,000, and in MACP No.256/2019 from Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 6,00,000, with proportionate costs and interest.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Compensation - Permanent Disability - Multiplier - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 5 for a 30-year-old injured claimant, which is contrary to the settled principle in Sarla Verma v. DTC that multiplier should be based on age of the deceased/injured. Held that multiplier of 18 is applicable for age group of 26-30 years (Paras 6-8).

B) Motor Accident Compensation - Future Prospects - Self-Employed - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal failed to grant future prospects to the injured claimant who was a self-employed driver. Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 40% addition for future prospects is warranted for self-employed persons below 40 years. Held that 40% future prospects must be added (Paras 9-10).

C) Motor Accident Compensation - Pain, Shock and Suffering - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000 for pain and suffering which is inadequate for grievous injuries. Held that compensation for pain and suffering should be enhanced to Rs. 50,000 (Para 11).

D) Motor Accident Compensation - Attendant Charges and Conveyance - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000 for attendant and conveyance which is low. Held that Rs. 10,000 is appropriate (Para 12).

E) Motor Accident Compensation - Interest Rate - Section 171 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal awarded 6% interest per annum. Held that 7.5% interest per annum is just and proper from the date of petition till realization (Para 13).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing compensation for permanent disability by applying a multiplier of 5 instead of the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma case, and whether future prospects should be granted to the injured claimants.

Final Decision

Both appeals are allowed. The common judgment and award dated 09.01.2025 is modified. In MACP No.255/2019, compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,25,000 to Rs. 5,76,000. In MACP No.256/2019, compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 6,00,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within eight weeks.

Law Points

Multiplier method for permanent disability
future prospects for self-employed persons
just and fair compensation
no deduction for personal expenses for injured claimant
interest rate on enhanced compensation

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:6229

R/First Appeal No. 1087 of 2025 with R/First Appeal No. 1135 of 2025

2026-01-27

Hasmukh D. Suthar

2026:GUJHC:6229

Mr. Sohil S. Dadi, Mr. M. M. Hakim, Mr. Anand S. Tailor, Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati

Metaben Mansukhbhai Ninama

Shanubhai Runalbhai Amaliyar & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against common judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident.

Remedy Sought

Appellants (original claimants) sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a motor accident.

Filing Reason

Claimants were injured in a motor accident on 01.04.2019 when a Tempo dashed into them; they sought compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of income, and permanent disability.

Previous Decisions

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod, passed common judgment and award dated 09.01.2025 in MAC Petition Nos.255/2019 and 256/2019, awarding Rs. 2,25,000 and Rs. 2,50,000 respectively.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 5 instead of the appropriate multiplier based on the age of the injured claimant? Whether the claimants are entitled to future prospects? Whether the compensation for pain and suffering, attendant charges, and conveyance is inadequate? Whether the rate of interest awarded is just and proper?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 5 instead of 18 for a 30-year-old claimant, failed to grant future prospects, and awarded low amounts for pain and suffering, attendant, and conveyance. Respondent Insurance Company supported the Tribunal's award as just and proper.

Ratio Decidendi

In motor accident compensation cases for permanent disability, the multiplier should be based on the age of the injured as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. Future prospects at 40% should be added for self-employed persons below 40 years as per Pranay Sethi. Compensation for pain and suffering, attendant charges, and conveyance should be just and fair. Interest rate of 7.5% per annum is appropriate.

Judgment Excerpts

The Tribunal has committed an error in applying multiplier of 5 instead of 18. Future prospects at 40% ought to have been granted. The compensation for pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs. 50,000. The rate of interest is enhanced to 7.5% per annum.

Procedural History

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod, passed common judgment and award on 09.01.2025 in MAC Petition Nos.255/2019 and 256/2019. Aggrieved, the claimants filed First Appeal Nos.1087/2025 and 1135/2025 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the High Court of Gujarat. Both appeals were heard together and disposed of by common judgment on 27.01.2026.