CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusJITENDRASINH BHAGVANSINH VAGHELA

     C/FA/4051/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4051 of 2025

==========================================================
        CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                           Versus
          JITENDRASINH BHAGVANSINH VAGHELA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 08/01/2026
                                 ORAL ORDER


1.   This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and award dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Kheda Nadiad in Motor
Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.413 of 2015.


2.    Head learned advocate for the appellant.


3.    Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the
learned Tribunal has committed an error in appreciating the
evidence. It was submitted that the claimant had suffered injury
only to four fingers of his foot and no other injury was sustained
by him, as reflected in the medical evidence at Exhibit-29. It was
further contended that despite this, the learned Tribunal has
erroneously           awarded     compensation       of     Rs.4,78,850/-,
particularly under the head of future loss of income, which is
contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC). It was
also submitted that the rate of interest awarded at 7.5% per


                                    Page 1 of 4
     C/FA/4051/2025                           ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




annum is on the lower side. It was argued that there is no
functional disability and that after the accident, the income of
the claimant has in fact increased. Hence, the appellant seeks to
allow the appeal.


4.    Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and
having gone through the record, prima facie it appears that the
only ground raised by the appellant–Insurance Company is that
the learned Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the
disability, as after the accident there is no functional disability
and the income of the claimant has substantially increased.



5.    It is pertinent to note that earlier the matter was decided
on 4th May 2023 and compensation of only Rs.58,000/- was
awarded. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the original claimant
preferred an appeal before this Court being First Appeal No.
2947 of 2024, wherein this Court was pleased to quash and set
aside the impugned judgment and award in MACP No. 413 of
2015 and remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh
hearing. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said order read thus:


      “7. I fail to substantiate myopic view taken by the
      learned Tribunal. For the injury caused to the
      claimant due to accident, amount has to be
      compensated under principle of just and fair
      compensation. The finding of learned Tribunal that
      even afteroad accident income is enhanced and
      therefore, did not grant compensation for loss of
      future prospects is totally erroneous finding.

      8. Without delving further into merits of the case, the
      appeal deserves consideration and requires to be

                              Page 2 of 4
     C/FA/4051/2025                          ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




      allowed.

      9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed.
      Impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. MACP
      No.413 of 2015 is remanded to the learned Tribunal
      for fresh hearing and ordered to be listed before
      learned MAC Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad for
      final disposal. Both the parties to remain present
      before the learned Tribunal on 23.12.2024.”

6.    Further, this Court had relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi
and Another [2024 JX (SC) 950].


7.    Thus, this Court had already come to the conclusion that
the learned Tribunal had earlier failed to properly appreciate the
evidence and had taken a myopic view in respect of the injuries
sustained by the claimant and the just and proper compensation
to be awarded. Hence, the matter was remitted back to the
Tribunal.



8.    On perusal of the record, it is seen that in the pursis at
Exhibit-69, the disability to the extent of 12% was accepted and,
by consent of both the parties, the learned Tribunal has
considered the same. In view of the earlier observations made by
this Court in First Appeal No. 2947 of 2024, nothing now
survives to challenge the findings of the learned Tribunal.



9.    This Court is therefore not inclined to entertain the appeal
on such flimsy and speculative grounds, particularly when the
issue of functional disability and increase in income after the

                             Page 3 of 4
                  C/FA/4051/2025                                                ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026




          accident was already considered in the earlier proceedings.



          10.      Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed at the admission
          stage. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of as having
          become infructuous.



                                                                             (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

          ALI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/01/2026 17:15:09




                                                        Page 4 of 4