High Court of Gujarat
METABEN MANSUKHBHAI NINAMAversusSHANUBHAI RUNALBHAI AMALIYAR
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court modified the Tribunal's award, fixing functional disability at 85% and increasing the compensation accordingly.
Summary
The appellants, victims of a motor accident involving a tempo on 1 April 2019, challenged the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Dahod under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing their disability—assigning 50% physical disability instead of 85% functional disability for the claimant who suffered an above‑knee amputation—and in calculating loss of future income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and artificial limb compensation. The High Court examined the medical certificates, income evidence (or lack thereof) and applied Supreme Court precedents on minimum wages and disability assessment. It held that the functional disability should be 85% and recalculated the compensation, increasing loss of future income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and awarding Rs 1,00,000 for an artificial limb. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, the Tribunal's award was modified, and the insurer was directed to pay the additional amounts with interest and costs.
Issues considered
- The correct percentage of functional disability to be applied for compensation
- Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing loss of future income in the absence of income proof
- Whether the amounts awarded for pain, shock, suffering, loss of amenities and artificial limb were inadequate
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173
Subjects
motor accidentcompensationdisability assessmentfunctional disabilityloss of future incomeartificial limbMotor Vehicles ActMotor Accident Claims Tribunal
Judgment
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1087 of 2025
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1135 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
METABEN MANSUKHBHAI NINAMA
Versus
SHANUBHAI RUNALBHAI AMALIYAR & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR SOHIL S DADI(12049) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ANAND S TAILOR(9021) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/01/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Since both these appeals are arising out of the same
accident and the grounds and issue involved in both the appeals
are common, they have been heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment. The First Appeal No.1087 of
2025 arises out of MAC Petition No.256 of 2019 and the First
Appeal No.1135 of 2025 arises out of MAC Petition No.255 of
2019.
Page 1 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
and award dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition Nos.255 of 2019 and 256 of 2019, the appellants –
original claimants preferred present appeals under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. M. Hakim, on behalf of Mr. S. S.
Dadi for the appellants – original Claimants and learned
Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, for the respondent no.3 –
Insurance Company. Perused the original record and
proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 01.04.2019, the claimants
were standing on Chakaliya Chokdi, Godi Road and waiting for
any vehicle to reach to their home, however at about 13:00
hours, one Tempo bearing Reg. No.GJ-20-V-9564, came in full
speed and dashed with the claimants, as a result of which the
claimants sustained serious accidental injuries on vital parts of
the body. Therefore, FIR being I-CR No.29/2019, came to be
registered with Dahod Town Police Station. Therefore, the
appellants have filed MAC Petitions seeking compensation,
wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence
Page 2 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
produced on record was pleased to partly allowed both the claim
petitions.
4) Learned Advocate Mr. M. M. Hakim on behalf of learned
Advocate Mr. S. S. Dadi for the appellants has submitted that
the learned Tribunal has committed in appreciating the evidence
on record and also erred in assessing disability of the claimant –
Mansukhbhai Kehjibhai Ninama (MAC Petition No.255 of 2019)
as he suffered amputated of left leg which resulted into 80%
disability body as a whole and the learned Tribunal ought to
have considered 100% functional disability body as a whole. He
has further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in
awarding meagre amount towards pain, shock and suffering and
loss of amenities and not awarding any amount towards artificial
limb. Similarly, the learned Tribunal has also committed error by
awarding inadequate compensation to the claimant – Metaben
Mansukhbhai Ninama (MAC Petition No.256 of 2019) and erred
in awarding meagre amount towards pain, shock and suffering
and special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges.
Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeals.
5) Learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respondent –
Insurance Company has opposed the present appeals and
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
and in absence of any evidence or material the Tribunal has
Page 3 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
properly awarded compensation. Hence, he has requested to
dismiss the present appeals.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1135 of 2025
(MAC PETITION NO.255 of 2019)
6) Perusing the record the record it appears that in order to prove
the claim the claimant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination –
in – chief at Exhibit 17, wherein, all the facts of the accident
have been narrated and supported the claim petition. The
claimant has further produced complaint at Exhibit 37,
panchnama at Exhibit 38, MLC at Exhibit 39, Medical Bills at
Exhibits 34, 52 and 53 and Disability Certificate at Exhibit 54.
The involvement of the vehicle, coverage of policy and
negligence are not disputed hence the opponent no.1 - driver of
the offending vehicle held sole negligent in causing the accident
and no further discussion is required. A perusal of Disability
Certificate at Exhibit 54, reveals that the claimant sustained
multiple accidental injuries and suffered amputated stump left
side above knee with around 15-20 cm stump size. The claimant
was doing agriculture masonry work and the learned Tribunal
has considered 50% disability on the ground that the Doctor has
opined and admitted that 50% disability body as a whole can be
taken into consideration. The learned Tribunal has considered
50% disablement but this Court is of the view that considering
Page 4 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
the nature of injuries as amputation of stump above knee and
below hip with stump size of 15-20 cm and also considering that
the claimant is engaged in masonry work 85% functional
disablement is required to be considered to award just
compensation to the claimant. The learned Tribunal has reduced
the disability to 50% merely on the opinion of the Doctor which
is physical disablement which never be considered as functional
disablement. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that
to award just compensation 85% functional disability of the
claimant is considered.
7) Now coming to the income part, 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 claimant. In the present
case the accident occurred on 01.04.2019 and during that time
the appellant – injured was doing senting work (masonry work),
whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the applicant
as Rs.8,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced as
per the rate of minimum wages of the prevalent time and hence,
the income of the injured is reassessed as Rs.8,500/- per
month. Further, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of
Page 5 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
the claimant at the time of accident was 50 years and 02
months and on the basis of the same considered multiplier of 11
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. However,
the Tribunal has considered 25% addition towards future
prospectus but considering the age of the applicant 10%
addition towards future prospectus is required to be considered.
Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,27,780/- towards
Medical Expense and Rs.45,000/- towards special diet,
attendance charges and transportation charges which are just
and proper.
8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as
Rs.8,500/- and future prospect of 10% = Rs.850/- which comes
to Rs.9,350/-. Now total income under the head of loss of future
income is required to be considered as Rs.9,350/- x 12 x 11 x
85%/ 100 = Rs.10,49,070/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled
to get additional amount of Rs.3,89,070/- towards loss of
future income. Similarly, considering the nature of injuries,
period of treatment and recovery, age and disablement of the
claimant, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has
committed error while considering pain, shock and suffering only
Rs.50,000/- which is required to be enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-
Page 6 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
i.e. additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards Pain, shock
and suffering. The Tribunal has also committed error in not
awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities, however,
considering the disablement Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded towards
loss of amenities. Further, as this Court has reassessed the
income of the claimant amount of Rs.48,000/- towards actual
loss of income is enhanced to Rs.51,000/- i.e. additional amount
of Rs.3,000/-. Moreover, considering the disability of the
claimant this Court is of the opinion that Rs.1,00,000/- is
awarded towards artificial limb.
9) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get
compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of future income Rs.6,60,000/- Rs.10,49,070/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,89,070/-
Pain, shock and Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
sufferings including additional
amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs.4,27,780/- Rs.4,27,780/-
Special diet, Rs.45,000/- Rs.45,000/-
attendant and
transportation
Actual loss of income Rs.48,000/- Rs.51,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,000/-
Page 7 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
Artificial Limb NIL Rs.1,00,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of Amenities NIL Rs.1,50,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
Total compensation Rs.12,30,780/- Rs.19,72,850/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.7,42,070/-
10) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.12,30,780/-, however, as discussed above
the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.7,42,070/- with proportionate costs and interest as
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1087 of 2025
(MAC PETITION NO.256 of 2019)
11) To prove her claim, the claimant has tendered affidavit at Exhibit
20, wherein, all the facts of the accident have been narrated and
supported the claim petition. The claimant has further produced
complaint at Exhibit 54, panchnama at Exhibit 55, MLC at Exhibit
56, Medical Bills at Exhibits 36 and Disability Certificate at
Exhibit 24. The involvement of the vehicle, coverage of policy
and negligence are not disputed hence the opponent no.1 -
driver of the offending vehicle held sole negligent in causing the
accident and no further discussion is required.
Page 8 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
12) Now coming to the income part, 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 prevailing rate of minimum wages in
absence of evidence of monthly income of the claimant. In the
present case the accident occurred on 01.04.2019 and during
that time the appellant – injured was doing senting work
(masonry work), whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income
of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month which is required to be
enhanced as per the rates of minimum wages of the year 2019
and hence, the income of the injured is reassessed as
Rs.8,500/- per month. Further, the learned Tribunal has
considered the age of the claimant at the time of accident was
49 years and 03 months and on the basis of the same 25%
addition towards future prospectus and multiplier of 13 were
considered 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.
Further, the Tribunal has considered disability of the injured as
11% which is admitted and hence no interference is required.
Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards
pain, shock and suffering, Rs.38,900/- towards Medical
Page 9 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
Expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards special diet, attendant and
transportation and considering the nature of injuries, age and
disability of the claimant the said amounts are just and proper.
However, as discussed above, the actual loss of income is
required to be reassessed as Rs.8,500/- for two months which
comes to Rs.17,000/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for
additional amount of Rs.1,000/- towards actual loss of income
as the income of the appellant is reassessed.
13) Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as
Rs.8,500/- and future prospect of 25% = Rs.2,125/- which
comes to Rs.10,625/-. Now total income under the head of loss
of future income is required to be considered as Rs.10,625/- x
12 x 13 x 11%/ 100 = Rs.1,82,325/-. Therefore, the appellant is
entitled to get additional amount of Rs.10,725/- towards loss
of future income.
14) As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get
compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of future income Rs.1,71,600/- Rs.1,82,325/-
including additional
amount of Rs.10,725/-
Pain, shock and Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
sufferings
Medical Expenses Rs.38,900/- Rs.38,900/-
Page 10 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
Special diet, Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
attendant and
transportation
Actual loss Rs.16,000/- Rs.17,000/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,000/-
Total compensation Rs.2,71,500/- Rs.2,83,225/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.11,725/-
15) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.2,71,500/-, however, as discussed above
the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of
Rs.11,725/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
16) Hence, present appeals are partly allowed. The common
judgment and award dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod, in MAC Petition Nos.255
of 2019 and 256 of 2019 stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The
respondent No.3 – Insurance Company shall deposit said
additional amount of Rs.7,42,070/- in MAC Petition No.255
of 2019 and Rs.11,725/- in MAC Petition No.256 of 2019
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.
Page 11 of 12
C/FA/1087/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
17) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
18) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 28/01/2026 15:42:06
Page 12 of 12
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