SANJAYBHAI SOMABHAI TADVIversusKAMLESHBHAI NAGINBHAI VASAVA

    C/FA/1082/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1082 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
         Approved for Reporting               Yes  No
                                                    √
==========================================================
                   SANJAYBHAI SOMABHAI TADVI
                                Versus
              KAMLESHBHAI NAGINBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5,6
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 22/01/2026
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is ?led by the appellant – original
claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
01.11.2022 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at
Dabhoi, District Vadodara (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.121 of 2020, whereby the learned Tribunal
was pleased to award compensation of Rs.11,59,100/- to the appellant
– original claimant.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to ?ling of present appeal is as follows:

[2.1] On 02.01.2016, the appellant herein – original claimant was
working as a conductor / cleaner in Eicher Truck No.GJ-06-YY-7341 of
opponent No.2 and the driver of Eicher Truck was driving the said



                                Page 1 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                                JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




Truck in rash and negligent manner and when the said Truck reached
at the place of accident, another Truck bearing No.GJ-06-XX-9925 was
lying on the road obstructing the traKc and the driver of Eicher Truck
dashed his truck on the backside of stationary truck on account of
which the appellant – original claimant got trapped in the cabin of the
Eicher Truck in such a way that his both legs were grievously injured.
Therefore, the appellant herein – original claimant ?led MACP
No.121/2020 seeking compensation.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the driver of Eicher Truck solely negligent for
the accident and was pleased to award Rs.11,59,100/- to the original
claimant      however,   being   aggrieved      with   the     quantum         of
compensation, the appellant – original claimant has ?led the present
First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim appearing for the appellant
– original claimant has submitted that the impugned judgment and
award is bad, illegal, invalid, unjust and unreasonable and contrary to
settled principles and proposition of law. He has further submitted
that the learned Tribunal has miserably erred in drawing highly
unjusti?ed and unwarranted inferences from the evidences on record
and erred in not computing compensation under the head of future
loss of dependancy and in not considering the monthly income of the
claimant at Rs.11,000/- at the time of accident and assessing monthly
income of the claimant at only Rs.5500/-. He has further submitted
that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering
100% functional disability of the claimant. In this regard, he has relied
on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.
Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road



                                 Page 2 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                            JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




Transport Corporation reported in 2022(0) AIJEL-SC 70212 and
argued to consider 100% disability and award Rs.10 lakh towards
arti?cial limb and loss of amenities. Hence, he has requested to allow
the present appeal.

[4.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have chosen not
to appear before this Court.

[5.0] Learned advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak appearing for the respondent
No.3 – insurance company has properly appreciated the evidence in
absence of any material or proof to show that the appellant – claimant
has suOered 100% functional disability though the doctor has
assessed 70% disablement. She has further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has properly considered the income of the claimant
at Rs.5500/- per month to award just compensation as also the
compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- towards arti?cial limb and whatever
evidence is produced before the learned Tribunal, has been properly
appreciated and even under the head of pain, shock and suOering,
Rs.50,000/- is appropriately awarded. Hence, no interference is called
for and she has requested to dismiss the appeal.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant – original
claimant and learned advocate 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 aKdavit of the claimant (Exh.25), complaint
(Exh.36), panchnama (Exh.37) and in view of 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 settled law that
negligence is required to be proved in claim petition under section 166

                               Page 3 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of
probability and not beyond doubt and even as per the complaint
(Exh.25) and as the involvement of oOending Eicher Truck, coverage
of risk, insurance policy of Eicher Truck is not in dispute, the learned
Tribunal came to conclusion that the driver of Eicher Truck was solely
negligent for the accident and negligence / liability aspect is not in
challenge and therefore, present appeal is considered only qua
quantum of compensation.

[7.0] So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, in order to
prove his claim, the claimant has tendered his aKdavit (Exh.25),
deposition of Dr. Tushar Modi (Exh.57), copy of letter written by
Pramukh Swami Hospital to Dabhoi Police Station (Exh.38), injury
certi?cate issued by Pramukh Swami Hospital (Exhs.39 and 40),
discharge card of claimant issued by SSG Hospital, Vadodara alongwith
medical papers (Exh.41), certi?cate showing permanent disability
(Exh.42), case paper given by Bhagwan Mahavir Viklang Sahayata
Samiti, Jaipur Camp-Dashrath (Exh.49) and permanent disability
certi?cate issued by Dr. Tushar Modi (Exh.64). It is the case of the
appellant – claimant that he sustained serious injury on both his legs
and was initially admitted in Pramukh Swami Hospital, at Dabhoda and
thereafter shifted to SSG Hospital, Vadodara for treatment of both his
legs where the claimant was operated upon and his left leg was cut-
short from below the knee and right leg was operated for M-3, Tibia
Fibula fracture by way of putting rods and screws and was discharged
on 11.03.2016. The claimant has stated in his aKdavit that during his
treatment, an expense of Rs.500 per day used to occur towards
attendant      charges and   Rs.50,000/-      has been     spent towards
transportation and medicines. It has also been averred that as per the
suggestion of Dr. Virendra Sandaliya, the claimant will require a


                               Page 4 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                             JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




special type of arti?cial leg for which an expense of Rs.1,60,000/- is
likely to occur and is a recurring expense.

[7.1] Further, perusing the evidence on record, it is an admitted
position on record that the claimant has received treatment in
Pramukh Swami Hospital at Dabhoi in the ?rst place and thereafter
was referred to SSG Hospital, Vadodara for further treatment. It
transpires from injury certi?cates issued by Pramukh Swami Hospital,
Dabhoi, SSG Hospital, Vadodara and Certi?cate of Permanent
Disability issued by Health and Family Welfare Dept, Govt. of Gujarat
produced before the learned Tribunal at Exhs.39, 40 and 42
respectively that the claimant sustained grievous injuries – left leg
crush below knee amputation and swelling with deformity in the right
lower leg. It further transpires from the record that the claimant has
also examined Dr. Tushar Modi at Exh.57, who had issued disability
certi?cate (Exh.58) to the claimant, wherein he assessed the disability
at 70%. The said doctor has stated in his deposition that claimant’s
disability qua the right leg is assessed at 18% whereas for the left leg
is assessed as 70%. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that he
perused the disability certi?cate (Exh.42) wherein disability qua the
left leg only is stated and that considering his injuries and resultant
disability, the claimant will not be able to work as driver/cleaner nor
will he be able to do any labour work. The said doctor has fairly
admitted that fracture injury in the right leg will become half as body
as a whole. Thus, the claimant has produced disability certi?cate
issued by Health and Family Welfare Dept. of Govt. of Gujarat which
assesses his disability at 70% and the said certi?cate is fully
corroborated by deposition of Dr. Modi and disability certi?cate
(Exh.58) also assesses the disability of claimant at 70%. Therefore, the
learned Tribunal has assessed the disability of claimant at 70%.


                                Page 5 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




[7.2] It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal and/or Court has to
ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the
permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the
permanent disability and claimant’s avocation, profession and nature
of work before the accident. The Tribunal / Court has to ?nd out
whether the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood, or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the
claimant could still eOectively carry on the activities and functions,
which he was earlier carrying on or whether he was prevented or
restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but
could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so
that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. At this
stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt
Ltd Vs Union of India, in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).534/2020
dated 16.11.2021 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued
certain directions, which read as under:

      “(iv) As far as the aspect of the issuance of certi cate on disability of victims is
      concerned it is reiterated that the guidelines laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar v.
      Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 mandatorily must be followed by the MACTs, in
      respect of loss of income due to injury/disablement. The District Medical Board is also
      directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and
      Empowerment, Government of India vide Gazette Noti cation S. No.61, dated
      05.01.2018, for issuance of Disability Certi cate in order to bring Pan India uniformity.

      The consequence is that the MACT would ascertain that permanent disability
      certi cate issued by the District Medical Board or body authorized by it is in
      accordance with the Gazette Noti cation alone. Once the certi cate is issued in this
      manner, the same can be marked for purposes of being taken into consideration as
      evidence without the necessity of summoning the concerned witness to give formal
      proof of the documents unless there is some reason for suspicion on the document.”


      Even, in the case of Anoop Maheshwari vs Oriental Insurance
Co. reported in (2025 INSC 1075), it has been held by the Apex Court
that so far the disability is concerned, the Certi?cate issued by the


                                        Page 6 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




government hospital can be accepted, even without a witness being
examined however, herein the doctor has given his evidence. Hence,
this Court is of the considered view that suKcient reliable evidence is
available on record and therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept
the argument to assess 100% functional disability of the claimant as
canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant -original claimant
also in light of the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal and as the
learned Tribunal has properly examined the evidence of claimant and
the disability certi?cate (Exh.58) wherein it clearly emerges that the
claimant is not able to do work as a driver or cleaner. At the same
time, claimant has to develop alternative skill or do diOerent type of
work to maintain himself and merely because the claimant is not
willing to do some other work is not a ground to consider 100%
functional disability of the claimant. Hence, no interference is required
so far as disability assessed by the learned Tribunal is concerned.

[8.0] So far as income of the claimant is concerned, learned Tribunal
has assessed income of claimant at Rs.5500/- per month considering
the year of accident and nature of job the claimant was engaged in.
Further, the claimant himself admitted that he has not produced any
evidence to substantiate his claim of monthly income of Rs.11,000/-
and therefore, in absence of any evidence, this Court is of considered
view that considering the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2016,
as the accident took place in the year 2016, monthly income of
claimant ought to have been considered at Rs.7500/- to award just
compensation. The claimant was aged 21 years at the time of accident
and therefore, in view of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, Rs.3000/- (40% of
Rs.7500/-) is required to be added towards future prospects and
therefore, prospective monthly income would come to Rs.10,500/-


                                Page 7 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                             JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




(Rs.7500 + Rs.3000) and as the claimant was aged 23 years at the time
of accident, in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier of 17 would apply. As
discussed hereinabove, disability is considered at 70% and therefore,
the claimant would be entitled to Rs.14,99,400/- [Rs.7350 (70% of
Rs.10,500) x 12 x 17) towards future loss of income. Further, it is not
in dispute that the claimant remained under treatment for a period of
?ve months and hence, he is entitled to Rs.10,500 x 5 months =
Rs.52,500/- under the head of actual loss of income.

[9.0] So far as claim of appellant to award Rs.10 lakh towards arti?cial
limb relying on the decision in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir
Hussain (Supra) is concerned, if we consider the fact that arti?cial
limb is required to be changed periodically that too within span of ?ve
or more years then considering the age of the claimant, the learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,000/- in absence of any evidence or
proof however, considering the requirement of prosthetic arti?cial
limb for the claimant, this Court is of considered view that
compensation under the head of arti?cial limb is required to be
reassessed at Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned advocate has relied on the
decision in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (Supra)
seeking enhancement of compensation towards arti?cial limb but it is
needless to say that each case is required to be decided independantly
on its own merits and facts. In this regard, reference is required to be
made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil
Suri vs. CBI reported in (2011)5 SCC 708. Herein, learned Tribunal has
properly assigned reasons for arriving at the compensation based on
the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard. The concept of ‘just compensation’ has to


                               Page 8 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-
violation of the principle of equitability. It is true that in the case of
death, legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for
compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though discretion vested in
the Tribunal is quite wide yet it is obligatory on the part of the
Tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just compensation”
and determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought
on record. To award the just compensation, the Tribunal has to
maintain uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between
the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and
the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the Tribunal and the
Courts is diKcult. In this regard, reference is required to be made to
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,
wherein the Apex Court held that while awarding compensation, the
Court is required to follow the guiding principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.55, which reads as under:

           “55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation”
           and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness,
           reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such
           determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be
           perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to
           arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an
           individual case. The conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed
           through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the
           principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants
           cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted
           cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though
           the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the
           part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just
           compensation”. The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence
           brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and
           thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to
           multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been
           approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier,
           have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts


                                       Page 9 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




           have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation
           which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money
           cannot substitute a life lost but an e>ort has to be made for grant of just
           compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance
           between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza
           and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the
           Courts is di?cult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for
           standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on
           the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned,
           there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty,
           stability and consistency. We approve the principle of “standardization” so
           that a speci c and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the
           multiplier on the basis of age.”


         In view of above, reliance placed on the decision of Mohd.
Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (Supra) would not avail any assistance to
the appellant.

[10.0]         Even, the compensation under the head of medical
expenses of Rs.40,000/- does not call for any interference in absence
of any further evidence produced on record. Further, the learned
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of
pain, shock and suOering but considering the nature of injury and 70%
disability, this Court deems it ?t to award Rs.1,50,000/- under the
head of pain, shock and suFering and under the head of special
diet, attendant charges and transportation, an amount of
Rs.50,000/- be awarded.


[11.0]         Thus, now the original claimant is entitled to the
compensation as under:

                     Heads               Amount            Reassessed by this
                                    awarded by the                 Court
                                         Tribunal
     Future loss of income            Rs.8,31,600/-         Rs.14,99,400/-
                                                         including additional
                                                        amount of Rs.6,67,800/-


                                     Page 10 of 12
    C/FA/1082/2023                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




     Actual loss of income              Rs.27,500/-           Rs.52,500/-
                                                         including additional
                                                        amount of Rs.25,000/-
     Pain, shock and suOering           Rs.50,000/-          Rs.1,50,000/-
                                                         including additional
                                                       amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
     Medical expenses                   Rs.40,000/-           Rs.40,000/-
                                                                  NIL
     Special diet, attendant            Rs.40,000/-           Rs.50,000/-
     and             transportation                      including additional
                                                        amount of Rs.10,000/-
     charges
     Arti?cial Limb                    Rs.1,60,000/-        Rs.5,00,000/-
                                                        including additional
                                                       amount of Rs.3,40,000/-
     Lump-sum amount for gel            Rs.50,000/-              NIL
     liner
                            Total... Rs.11,59,100/-         Rs.22,51,900/-
                                                         including additional
                                                              amount of
                                                            Rs.10,92,800/-


         Thus, total compensation of Rs.11,59,100/- as awarded by the
learned Tribunal is on lower side, for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, and therefore, same is required to be reassessed as
Rs.22,51,900/- and therefore, the impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal is modi?ed to the aforesaid extent.

[12.0]         In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal is
partly allowed. The Impugned judgment and award dated 01.11.2022
by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at Dabhoi,
District Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.121 of 2020 is
modi?ed to the extent that respondent No.3 – Insurance Company is
directed to deposit reassessed compensation of Rs.22,51,900/-
alongwith accrued interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal, with
the learned Tribunal within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of


                                      Page 11 of 12
       C/FA/1082/2023                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026




receipt of the present judgment. Rest of the impugned judgment and
award remains unaltered.

[12.1]             After the aforesaid amount of reassessed compensation is
deposited by the insurance company, learned Tribunal is directed to
disburse the entire amount with accrued interest thereon, if any, to
the original claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after
proper veri?cation and after following due procedure.

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

[14.0]             Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.


                                                                                          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 23/01/2026 16:14:27




                                                  Page 12 of 12