RAVINDRA MADHUBHAI PARMARversusDIPAKSINH KALUSINH

    C/FA/1010/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1010 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
         Approved for Reporting              Yes   No
                                                    √
==========================================================
                 RAVINDRA MADHUBHAI PARMAR
                                Versus
                    DIPAKSINH KALUSINH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 11/02/2026
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] By way of present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant – original claimant has assailed the
impugned judgment and award dated 03.11.2021 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (for short
“learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.357/2013,
whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition in
favor of the original claimant and awarded Rs.1,65,019/- with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to Fling of present appeal are as follows:

[2.1] On 03.11.2012, the claimant was riding as a pillion rider on two
wheeler bearing registration No.GJ-01-BE-8958 being driven by his
colleague and while they were returning after delivering goods, at the


                                 Page 1 of 7
    C/FA/1010/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




place of accident, driver of Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-01-AP-
8130 came with full speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed
the Scooty of the claimant on the front side as a result of which the
claimant and driver of Scooty fell down on road and sustained serious
injuries. Therefore, the original claimant Fled the claim petition
seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakh.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced on record by the
respective parties, learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold the
original opponent No.1 – driver of oKending Jeep to be solely
negligent for the accident. Hence, present First Appeal is Fled by the
appellant – original claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Manan Paneri appearing for the appellant
has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in
granting meager compensation by not awarding compensation under
the head of future prospective income by assigning reason that after
the accident, income of claimant has increased. He has submitted that
though the claimant sustained 23% disablement, which is proved vide
document produced at Exh.89, the learned Tribunal has assessed the
disablement of claimant only at 15% and relying on the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajaykumar & Ors.
reported in (2011)1 SCC 343 learned Tribunal has refused to award
just compensation. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar
reported in (2022) 13 SCC 790 and requested to allow the appeal by
enhancing the compensation.

[4.0] Learned advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak appearing for the respondent
No.3 – insurance company has opposed the First Appeal on the ground
that there is no any future loss of earning caused to the claimant after

                                Page 2 of 7
    C/FA/1010/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




the accident as the income of the claimant has increased and even
witness in this regard is examined who has deposed that at the time of
accident gross income of the claimant was only Rs.6815/- and
subsequently, same has increased upto Rs.15,000/- in the year 2018
and even salary slip is also produced on record. Hence, there is no
future loss of income caused to the claimant and learned Tribunal has
not committed any error in light of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar (Supra). She has further
submitted that in view of there being no loss of income and increase
in the income of claimant, the claimant is not entitled to get any
addition in the income towards future prospects and learned Tribunal
has rightly considered 15% disablement of the claimant considering
his earning capacity. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the present
appeal.

[5.0] Since the only issue raised in the present appeal is of quantum
of compensation and involvement, liability of insurance company and
factum of accident is not challenged, present appeal is considered in
narrow compass.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant – original
claimant and learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 –
insurance company and perusing the record, it appears that the
learned Tribunal has considered the evidence produced and adduced
by both the parties including the aNadvit of the claimant (Exh.51),
complaint (Exh.55), panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.56) as well as
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi
vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi
vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, wherein it is held that
it is settled law that negligence is required to be proved in claim



                               Page 3 of 7
    C/FA/1010/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on the touchstone of
the preponderance of probability and not beyond doubt and even
considering the fact that the driver of oKending jeep has not stepped
into the witness box, learned Tribunal has held the driver of oKending
jeep to be solely negligent for the accident.

[7.0] Perusing the record & proceedings, it appears that the learned
Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ajaykumar (Supra) has come to the conclusion that after the
accident, income of the claimant has increased upto Rs.15,000/- and
hence, there is no actual loss of income and hence, no any
compensation is awarded under the head of future loss of income but
only under the head of loss of amenities, Rs.42,000/- is awarded and
Rs.18,150/- only is awarded under the head of actual loss of income
and thus total compensation of Rs.1,65,019/- is awarded.

[7.1] Perusing the record, it appears that in order to prove the
income, the appellant – original claimant has Fled his aNdavit for
examination in chief at Exh.51 wherein he has stated that at the time
of accident, he was earning Rs.6816/- per month by working with
Associated Lighting Systems and doing work of delivery of goods and
electric Fttings. Though the learned Tribunal has after appreciating
the evidence and salary certiFcate produced at Exh.88 has accepted
the monthly income of Rs.6150/- as notional income considering the
fact that the accident took place in October, 2012 though while
awarding the compensation, keeping in mind the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaykumar (Supra), as salary of
the claimant has increased after the accident, future loss is not
awarded considering the salary certiFcate of the year 2018 which
shows the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/-. This Court is



                                Page 4 of 7
    C/FA/1010/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




of considered view that there is no rule or law that after the accident
merely because income has increased, compensation is required to be
refused towards future loss of income. In this regard, reference is
required to be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @
Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation reported in 2022(0) AIJEL-SC 70212. Hence, considering
monthly income of claimant at Rs.6150/- and as the claimant was aged
39 years of age at the time of accident, in view of decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700,
addition of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made and
therefore, adding Rs.2460/- (40% of Rs.6150), monthly future loss of
income would come to Rs.8610/- (Rs.2460 + Rs.6150). To that extent,
the impugned judgment and award is required to be modiFed.

[7.2] So far as disablement sustained by the claimant is concerned,
perusal of medical certiFcate (Exh.58) reveals that the claimant had
sustained fracture of tibia Fbula in right leg and was operated for the
same. The disability certiFcate (Exh.89) shows disability at 23% body
as a whole however, the learned Tribunal has assessed 15% disability
of the claimant. It is needless to say that always permanent or partial
disablement adversely aKect the earning capacity and routine work of
an individual. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of
considered view that 15% disablement is rightly assessed by the
learned Tribunal. Hence, applying 15% disability, the appellant –
original claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,32,380/- [Rs.1291 (15% of
Rs.8610) x 12 x 15] towards future loss of income.

[7.3] So far as compensation awarded under the head of loss of



                               Page 5 of 7
    C/FA/1010/2022                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




amenities is concerned, it is required to be noted that in view of the
compensation awarded under the head of future loss of income, the
compensation under the head of loss of amenities is not required to
be awarded and therefore, the impugned judgment and award is
required to be modiFed to that extent.

[7.4] So far as compensation awarded under other heads is
concerned,       the   learned      Tribunal           has   appropriately      awarded
compensation under the heads of actual loss of income, pain, shock
and suKering, special diet, attendant and transportation charges and
actual medical expenses respectively at Rs.18,450/-, Rs.15,000/-,
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.79,569/- and to that extent, no interference is
called for at the hands of this Court.

[8.0] Hence, the original claimant is now entitled to get the
compensation as under:

                       Heads                     Awarded by         Reassessed by this
                                                  Tribunal                Court
               Future loss of income                   NIL             Rs.2,32,380/-

               Actual Loss of income              Rs.18,450/-            Rs.18,450/-

             Pain, shock and suKering             Rs.15,000/-            Rs.15,000/-

              Spl. Diet, attendant and            Rs.10,000/-            Rs.10,000/-
              transportation charges
             Actual Medical Expenses             Rs.79,569/-            Rs.79,659/-
               Total Compensation               Rs.1,65,019/-           Rs.3,55,489/-
                                                                    including additional
                                                                  amount of Rs.1,90,470/-


      Thus, the compensation of Rs.1,65,019/- awarded by the learned
Tribunal is on lower side for the reasons recorded hereinabove and
therefore, same is required to be enhanced to the aforesaid extent i.e.


                                         Page 6 of 7
       C/FA/1010/2022                                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




Rs.3,55,489/- and hence, the appellant – original claimant is entitled
to get reassessed compensation of Rs.3,55,489/- and therefore, the
impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is
modiFed to the aforesaid extent.

[9.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, First Appeal is partly allowed
and impugned judgment and award dated 03.11.2021 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.357/2013 is modiFed and respondent No.3
– insurance company is directed to deposit reassessed amount of
compensation of Rs.3,55,489/- to be paid to the appellant – original
claimant alongwith accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
judgment.

[9.1] After deposit of the entire reassessed amount of compensation,
the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation with
accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee
cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper veriFcation and after following
due procedure and strictly in accordance with the apportionment
made by the learned Tribunal.

[9.2]                While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid.

[10.0]               Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
                     Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.


                                                                                             Sd/-
                                                                           (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
       Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
       Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/02/2026 15:21:40


                                                      Page 7 of 7