High Court of Gujarat
RAJESHBHAI ALIAS IGNASBHAI FRANCISBHAI MECWANversusVINUBHAI ISHWARBHAI PARMAR
- Disposal
- 39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Tribunal’s assessment of compensation for the injured appellant was correct and not liable to interference, whereas the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation for the deceased’s dependents was insufficient and must be enhanced as per the applicable principles of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Summary
The case involved two appeals arising from the same 2015 road accident. In First Appeal No.1439, the injured appellant sought enhancement of compensation alleging errors in income assessment, negligence attribution and future loss of earnings. The High Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of his monthly salary (Rs 20,000) reasonable, accepted the 5% negligence attribution to him, and held there was no evidence of loss of future income, thus dismissing the appeal. In First Appeal No.1450, the claimants of the deceased sought higher compensation, contending the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s income at Rs 4,000 and in calculating loss of dependency, estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Relying on statutory provisions and Supreme Court precedents, the Court held the Tribunal’s income assessment was unsupported and recalculated the loss of dependency at Rs 7,16,364 and other heads, ordering an additional payment of Rs 3,80,540. Consequently, the first appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was partly allowed, modifying the award accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the injured appellant’s monthly income and negligence percentage.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation for future loss of income to the injured appellant.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income and consequently the loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium.
- Whether the Tribunal’s award should be enhanced in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
motor accidentcompensationloss of dependencyfuture loss of incomedisabilitynegligenceMotor Vehicles Actquantum of damages
Judgment
C/FA/1439/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1439 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1450 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJESHBHAI ALIAS IGNASBHAI FRANCISBHAI MECWAN
Versus
VINUBHAI ISHWARBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/02/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Since both these appeals are arising out of the same accident,
they are being heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment. The First Appeal No.1439 of 2022 arises out of MAC
Petition No.230 of 2018 and the First Appeal No.1450 of 2022 arises
out of MAC Petition No.606 of 2015.
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatis>ed with the judgment and award
dated 16.12.2021, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux.), Petlad, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in
Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.230/2018, the appellant – injured
has >led First Appeal No.1439/2022 for enhancement of
Page 1 of 9
C/FA/1439/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
compensation, whereas, the appellants – original claimants have >led
First Appeal No.1450/2022 against the judgment and award dated
13.10.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Anand, in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.606/2015 for
enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. Vaibhav N. Sheth, learned Advocate for the appellants –
original Claimants in both the appeals. Though served, none appears
for the respondents.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 28.08.2015, at about 19:45
hours, the appellant and his brother Josefbhai were travelling on TVS
scooter bearing No.GJ-06-FA-6333 and his brother was driving the
scooter, at that time, one Dumper bearing No.GJ-23-W-2163 came
with excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed
with the scooter of the appellant. As a result, the appellant
Rajeshbhai @ Ignasbhai Macwan and his brother Josefbhai Macwan
got serious fracture injuries. In the said accident, due to fatal injuries
sustained by Josefbhai, he died on the spot. Therefore, the
appellants have >led MAC Petitions seeking compensation. After
appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal
was pleased to partly allowed both the claim petitions.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1439 OF 2022
4) In First Appeal No.1439/2022, it is submitted that the Tribunal has
erred in assessing monthly income of the appellant as Rs.20,000/-,
whereas, he was earning Rs.20,812/- at the time of accident. Further,
the Tribunal has also committed an error in assessing 5 % negligence
on the part of deceased as the accident occurred due to sole
Page 2 of 9
C/FA/1439/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
negligence on the part of driver of oHending vehicle Dumper came
on wrong side and dashed with the motorcycle of the appellants.
Further, the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding any
amount under the head of loss of future income and not adequately
awarded compensation under the head of pain, shock and suHering.
In such circumstances, he has prayed to enhance the compensation in
First Appeal No.1439/2022.
5) After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties, it appears that the appeal is >led on two grounds: (i)
quantum and (ii) disability. The Insurance Company has not >led any
cross-objection. Therefore, the appeals required to be decided on the
aspects of quantum and negligence. The occurrence of the alleged
incident is not in dispute, and the involvement of the vehicle is also
uncontested. Based on the documentary evidence, the Tribunal has
concluded that the accident occurred on the right side of the white
line on the road, which reveals that the accident took place in the
middle of the road. After considering both oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal found the driver of the dumper to be 95%
negligent and the driver of the TVS scooter to be 5% negligent for
causing the accident. The dumper was traveling from Bhavanipura to
Rangaipura, while the TVS scooter was going in the opposite
direction, from Rangaipura to Bhavanipura.
6) Regarding the income aspect is concerned, the appellant has >led an
aJdavit at Exh:26 that, as a result of the alleged accident, he
sustained a serious fracture and was hospitalized at Karamsad
Hospital, where he stayed for 7 days. At the time of the accident, he
was 44 years old and employed as a Clerk at Don Bosco School,
Vadodara, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/-. To substantiate
Page 3 of 9
C/FA/1439/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
his income, the appellant presented the deposition of Sanjaybhai K.
Macwan, Clerk at Don Bosco High School, Vadodara at Exh:39.
Mr.Macwan con>rmed that he had been working as a Clerk at Don
Bosco School since last 27 years and produced a certi>cate showing
the salary paid to the appellant for the months of July, August, and
September 2015, issued by the Principal of Don Bosco High School,
Vadodara. The certi>cate marked as Exh:40 signed by the Principal. In
cross-examination, Mr. Macwan admitted that the salary of
employees was disbursed after receiving a grant from the DO OJce
and that the salary details were based on school records, over which
he had no personal knowledge. He also acknowledged that he was
unaware of how many days, the appellant was absent due to the
injuries. The appellant resumed his duties with a >tness certi>cate,
and his current gross salary is Rs. 36,966/-. Upon reviewing the
certi>cate at Exh:40) issued by the Principal of Don Bosco High
School, it is established that the appellant was paid a net salary of Rs.
20,812/- for the months of July, August, and September 2015.
Considering the fact that the alleged accident took place in August
2015, the Tribunal rightly assessed the appellant's monthly income at
Rs. 20,000/- and hence, does not require any interference in the
aspect of quantum.
7) So far as disability is concerned, the appellant has produced a
disability certi>cate at Exh:34, issued by Dr. Yogesh Parikh of Tulsi
Hospital, Nadiad, which certi>es 22% disability in the right upper
limb. However, learned advocate for the appellant before the
Tribunal >led a Pursis, declaring that the appellant is a government
employee and has no objection if 5% disability for the entire body is
considered, which was agreed upon by both parties, which does not
require any interference of this Court.
Page 4 of 9
C/FA/1439/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
8) So far future loss of income is concerned, the Tribunal considering
the disability and other evidence, held that the appellant continued
his employment, drawing a higher salary than his previous salary, and
that there was no impact on his disability as a result of the accident.
The appellant claimed that due to the disability, he could not be
promoted and suHered a loss of future earnings. However, there is
no evidence to support this claim of future earnings loss, nor any
evidence to link the lack of promotion to the disability caused by the
accident. The appellant did not show any impact on his earning
capacity due to the disability. The disability certi>cate referred to a
22% disability in the right upper limb, not for the entire body. The
percentage of disability may result in varying degrees of loss of
earning capacity, depending on the nature of the job, profession, age,
and other factors. In the case of a driver or a particular laborer, the
functional loss of earning capacity might be higher than the
percentage of permanent disability. In this case, the appellant’s
permanent disability of the limb could not be considered as a
functional disability of the entire body, nor it could be assumed to
result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, as the disability did
not prevent the appellant from continuing his work as a clerk in the
school. Moreover, there was no evidence to establish that the
appellant’s failure to receive a promotion was due to the disability
caused by the accident. In fact, the appellant did not suHer any
economic loss as a result of the disability caused by the injury.
Therefore, no compensation was awarded for future loss of income.
Consequently, this Court >nds no reason to interfere with the
Tribunal’s decision on this aspect.
Page 5 of 9
C/FA/1439/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
9) Further, the Tribunal has properly awarded Rs.47,327/- towards
medical bills on the basis of the medical bills produced at Exh:48,
which is also just and proper.
10) For the foregoing reasoning, observations and evidence produced on
record, this Court is of view that, the Tribunal has not committed any
error in awarding compensation to the appellant – injured. Hence,
impugned judgment and award dated 16.12.2021, passed by learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Petlad, in Motor Accident
Claim Petition Nos.230/2018 does not call for any interference. First
Appeal No.1439 of 2022 fails and is hereby dismissed.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1450 OF 2022
11) In First Appeal No.1450/2022, it is submitted that, the Tribunal has
committed an error in considering monthly income of the deceased
as Rs.4,000/- on notional basis and ought to have considered the fact
that the deceased was doing oJce work of computer operator and
being semi skilled person, used to earn Rs.8,000/- p.m and even as per
the minimum wage prevailing at the time of accident, minimum wage
at the time of accident i.e. 2015, was Rs.7,400/- is required to be
considered.
12) In order to prove the claim, the claimant No.2 has >led an AJdavit at
Exh:18, FIR at Exh:26, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh:27,
Inquest Panchanama at Exh:22 and PM report at Exh:29. After
appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held the
oHending vehicle 87 % negligent and 3 % negligent on the part of
the deceased relying on the decisions of the Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC
reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir
Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635. Further, the age of the
Page 6 of 9
C/FA/1439/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
deceased is 54 years as per the PM report which is at Exh:29.
13) Further, the claimants have produced simple certi>cate at Exh:17/5
showing that the deceased was serving as computer operator in the
oJce of Shree Sai Copier. But the claimants have not examined any
witness / owner of the said >rm to prove the employment of the
deceased and his income. Therefore, said certi>cate has no
evidentiary value for income aspect and the income of the deceased
was not proved.
14) As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1)
TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record,
then Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum wages in absence
of evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the present case,
the accident occurred in the year 2015 and during that time, the
deceased was doing job and used to earn Rs.20,000/- which is not
proved, and even considering the deceased as semi skilled person,
the minimum income is required to be considered as Rs.7,400/-.
Hence, and the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.7,400/-
per month. Further, the Tribunal has considered future prospective
income of the deceased as 10%, which is just and proper. As the
deceased was 54 years married person and having dependents, 1/3rd
deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased and
multiplier of 11 were considered by the learned Tribunal as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors.
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which
are just and proper.
15) Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.7,400/- and
future prospect of 10 % = Rs.740/- which comes to Rs.8,140/- and
Page 7 of 9
C/FA/1439/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
1/3rd amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and
living of the deceased which comes to Rs.2,713/- and the net amount
comes to Rs.5,427/-. In view of above, the amount under the head of
loss of future dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,427/-
x 12 months x 11 multiplier = Rs.7,16,364/-. Therefore, the appellants
are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,29,208/- under the head
of future loss of dependency.
16) Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16)
SCC 680 has awarded total Rs.30,000/- under the two conventional
heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to
be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-
towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants – original
claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e.
Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3150/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs3150/- towards funeral expenses).
17) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram,
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao
Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd.,
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the appellants are entitled for
loss of consortium for two claimants. Therefore, the amount towards
loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.96,800/- for two claimants).
18) As discussed above, the appellants – original claimants are entitled to
get compensation computed as under:-
Page 8 of 9
C/FA/1439/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
Heads Awarded by the Reassessed by this
Tribunal Court
Future loss of dependency Rs.3,87,156/- Rs.7,16,364/-
Loss of Estate Rs,15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.96,800/-
Total compensation Rs.4,57,156/- Rs.8,49,464/-
3 % deduction towards Rs.13,715/- Rs.25,483/-
negligence
Net compensation Rs.4,43,441/- Rs.8,23,981/-
(19) As Rs.4,43,441/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the
appellants – original claimants of First Appeal No. 1450 of 2022 are entitled
to get additional amount of Rs.3,80,540/- (Rs.8,23,981/- - Rs.4,43,441/-)
with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
(20) Hence, First Appeal No.1450 of 2022 is partly allowed. The judgment
and award dated 13.10.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Anand, in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.606/2015
stands modi>ed to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award
remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.2 shall deposit such
additional amount of Rs.3,80,540/- along with interest as awarded by the
Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(21) The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the de>cit court fees on
enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. Award
to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/02/2026 17:09:02
Page 9 of 9
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "motor accident"Sign in to search