High Court of Gujarat

VALLABHBHAI KARSHANBHAI GODAVARIYAversusJENTIBHAI TAPUBHAI KAPADIYA

Disposal: 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
Bench: HASMUKH D SUTHAR

Holding

The appeal is partly allowed; the compensation award is increased to include future loss of income, raising the total to Rs.3,91,725.

Summary

The appellant, Vallabhbhai Godavariya, was injured in a 2016 motor accident and claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs.3,58,400. He appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the Tribunal failed to consider future loss of income. The High Court noted that, in the absence of proof of actual earnings, the Tribunal correctly used the statutory minimum wage of Rs.5,000 per month, but erred by not adding a 25% uplift for future earning prospects. Applying the multiplier of 13 (per Sarla Verma) and accounting for a 19% disability, the Court recalculated the future loss component to Rs.1,85,250, raising total compensation to Rs.3,91,725. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, directing the insurer to pay an additional Rs.33,325 with interest and costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal should have considered future loss of income in assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether the use of minimum wage as a proxy for income is appropriate in the absence of income proof.
Whether the multiplier and disability percentage applied by the Tribunal were correct.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 173

Subjects

motor accident claimcompensationfuture loss of incomedisabilitymultiplierSection 173Motor Vehicles Actminimum wage

Judgment

     C/FA/4681/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4681 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
            Approved for Reporting                  Yes           No

==========================================================
                  VALLABHBHAI KARSHANBHAI GODAVARIYA
                                 Versus
                   JENTIBHAI TAPUBHAI KAPADIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 16/02/2026

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1)     Feeling aggrieved and dissatis ed with the judgment and award
        dated 30.09.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
        Gondal, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor
        Accident Claim Petition No. 32 of 2017, the appellant – original
        claimant preferred present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor
        Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).


2)     Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned Advocate for the appellant –
        original Claimant and Mr. Yogi K. Gadhiya, learned Advocate for
        respondent no.3. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1
        and 2.


3)     It is the case of the appellant that on 07.09.2016, the appellant along
        with his family was returning from Magharvada on motorcycle


                                    Page 1 of 4
 C/FA/4681/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




    bearing No.GJ-03-EG-5974 and when they reached near village
    Kherda, at that time, one car bearing No.GJ-03-4875 came with full
    speed and in rash and negligent manner in wrong side and dashed
    with the motorcycle of the appellant. As a result of which the
    appellant sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the appellant has
      led MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the
    evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to
    partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of
    Rs.3,58,400/-.

4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal is

     led mainly on the ground of quantum of income and future
   prospects. But while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
   appellant has not pressed income aspect. Therefore, present appeal
   is required to be decided in narrow compass whether future prospect
   is required to be considered or not.

5) Learned advocate Mr. Gadhia, for respondent No.3 - Insurance

   Company has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the
   compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper and
   no interference is required to call for. With these submissions he has
   requested to dismissed the appeal.

6) 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
   ample evidence of monthly income of the injured. In the present case,
   the accident occurred in 2016 and during that time, as per the
   Government approved minimum wages, the Tribunal has assessed the
   income of the injured as Rs.5,000/- per month which is not pressed by


                               Page 2 of 4
      C/FA/4681/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




        learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, income of the injured as
        assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/- p.m is just and proper.

  7) So far as disability is concerned, the appellant has produced a

        disability certi cate at Exh:66 showing that the appellant has
        sustained 38 % permanent partial disability, but the Tribunal has
        considered 19%, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the
        appellant and the same remains undisturbed.

  8) As the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 13 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 is also just
        and proper. But the Tribunal has committed error in not considering
        any future prospects income. Therefore, if we reassess the
        compensation with reassessed income of the injured as Rs.5000/- p.m
        income on adding future prospects income at 25 %, then it would
        come to Rs.1,250/- p.m. So per month income comes to Rs.6250/- and
        by applying 13 multiplier and deduction of 19 % disability, it comes to
        Rs.1,85,250/- (Rs.6,250/- x 12 months x 13 multiplier x 19% disability)
        under the head of future loss of income.

  9) So far other conventional heads are concerned, learned counsel for

        the appellant has not disputed the same and therefore, the same do
        not require any interference.

10)     As discussed above, the appellant is entitled to get compensation
        computed as under:


                       Heads      Awarded by       Reassessed by this Court
                                   Tribunal
               Future loss of    Rs.1,48,200/-             Rs.1,85,250/-
                  income



                                    Page 3 of 4
      C/FA/4681/2025                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




             Mental Pain, shock                 Rs.30,000/-                       Rs.30,000/-
               and suEerings
              Medical expense                 Rs.1,75,000/-                      Rs.1,75,000/-
                Actual loss of                 Rs.15,000/-                        Rs.15,000/-
                   income
              Transportation,                   Rs.30,000/-                       Rs.30,000/-
              Special diet, and
             attendant charges
               10% deduction                      39,820/-                           43,525/-
             towards negligent
                    Total                     Rs.3,58,400/-                      Rs.3,91,725/-
               compensation


11)      In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
         Rs.3,58,400/-/-, however, as discussed above the appellant would be
         entitled to get additional amount of Rs.33,325/- with proportionate
         costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

12)      Hence, present appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and award
         dated 30.09.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
         Gondal, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 32 of 2017 stand
         modi ed 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.33,325/- 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.

13)      The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the de cit court fees on
         enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
         Award to be drawn accordingly.




                                                                        (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

SUCHIT

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/02/2026 11:31:00

                                                  Page 4 of 4

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "motor accident claim"Sign in to search