Bombay High Court
SHRI. RAJENDRA SUDAM GANGURDEversusSHRI. SIDDIK KHAN AHMED KHAN AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Partly Allowed
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The appellate court held that the tribunal’s assessment of loss of earnings was erroneous and modified the compensation award accordingly.
Summary
The appellant, Rajendra Sudam Gangurde, appealed a tribunal award of Rs.12,29,230 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, seeking enhancement of compensation for loss of earnings and an artificial limb. He proved he ran a typing institution and, due to an above‑elbow arm loss, suffered 80% occupational disability, presenting income‑tax returns to show a higher monthly loss than the tribunal's Rs.5,000 figure. The insurer argued the tribunal correctly relied on post‑accident tax returns, which might be inflated, and that the tribunal's findings were sound. The High Court examined the evidence, found the tribunal erred in fixing the loss of income at Rs.5,000 per month, and recalculated the future loss of earnings at Rs.10,000 per month. Consequently, the court partially allowed the appeal, raising the total compensation to Rs.19,97,730 with interest, while leaving the rest of the tribunal’s order unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the tribunal erred in fixing the claimant's loss of earnings at Rs.5,000 per month instead of Rs.10,000 per month based on income‑tax returns.
- Whether the compensation for loss of earnings and artificial limb should be enhanced on appeal.
- Whether the tribunal's findings on disability and income can be modified by the appellate court.
Subjects
- motor vehicle accident
- compensation
- loss of earnings
- occupational disability
- artificial limb
- tribunal
- appeal
- income tax returns
Judgment
58 FA 83-22-C.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.83 OF 2022
Rajendra Sudam Gangurde …Appellant
Versus
Siddik Khan Ahmed Khan and anr. …Respondents
Mr. Rajan S. Pawar, for the Appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Kanojia i/by Res Juris, for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 13th JANUARY, 2026.
PC:-
1. This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation
granted by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 68 of 2014 in judgment
and award dated 10th January, 2018.
2. The factum of the accident, involvement of motor vehicle, its
ownership and insurance are not in dispute.
3. The Claimant has examined himself and led evidence in the
form of income tax returns to prove his occupation and income. He
also examined doctor for proving the disability caused to him.
Learned Tribunal accepted the case of the Claimant and granted
compensation of Rs.12,29,230/- with interest at the rate of 6%.
The Claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA
PRIYA RAJESH
RAJESH SOPARKAR
SOPARKAR Date:
Page 1 of 4
2026.01.16
14:40:30 th
+0530 13 January, 2026.
58 FA 83-22-C.DOC
seeks enhancement on the ground that the Tribunal has paid
consideration the actual loss caused to the Claimant on account of
injury sustained by him. Similarly, enhancement is asked for
compensation for artificial limb which came to be proved by
examining witness.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Claimant submits that
before the Tribunal it is proved that the Claimant was running a
typing institution and on account of the disability caused to him
for loss of his arm above elbow, there is loss of
functional/occupational disability resulting into loss of his income.
It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in fixing the
amount of loss of income at Rs.5,000/- per month which on the
basis of the evidence on record which would be atleast Rs.10,000/-
per month. To support the submission, he drew attention of this
Court to the evidence of the Claimant on record so also income tax
returns.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurer opposed the appeal by
contending that the Tribunal while assessing the loss of the income
of the injured has rightly taken into consideration the fact income
tax returns are filed after the occurrence of the accident that the
income and that there is possibility of income having been shown
inflated in the returns.
6. It is his further submission that in the facts of the case no
fault can be found in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Hence,
appeal deserves to be rejected.
Page 2 of 4
th
13 January, 2026.
58 FA 83-22-C.DOC
7. The Claimant has substantiated the fact that the accident in
question he sustained injuries which has resulted into
configuration of arm above elbow. He led evidence of doctor
through whom the disability has been proved to the extent of
occupational disability of 80%. The Claimant also lead evidence to
show that he is running typing institution and on account of
disability caused to him there is loss of income as he was required
to take assistance of the others in the said business. There is no
challenge made by the Insurer to the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal including the findings recorded by the Tribunal
with regard to the income of Claimant on the basis of income tax
returns.
8. Having regard to the said returns, the Tribunal ought to have
considered the loss of the income of the Claimant to the extent of
Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/-. The computation of
compensation therefore deserves modification. The computation of
compensation would be as under :-
Sr. No. Particulars Amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/-
2. Special diet, attendance, Rs.5,000/-
travelling
3. Medical expenses Rs.4,31,230/-
4. Total future loss of earning Rs.15,36,000/-
12 x 10,000 x 16 x 80/100
Total Rs.19,97,230/-
9. In view of the above, following order:-
(I) Appeal stands partly allowed.
Page 3 of 4
th
13 January, 2026.
58 FA 83-22-C.DOC
(ii) Appellant/Claimant shall be entitled to receive an amount of
Rs.19,97,730/- with interest as per order of Tribunal.
(iii) Rest of order passed by Tribunal to remain unchanged.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 4 of 4
th
13 January, 2026.
Checking your session…