Gujarat High Court
Chetanbhai Pravinchandra Hadiyal vs Insafkhan Adrimkhan Sandhi on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4506/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4506 of 2024
================================================================
CHETANBHAI PRAVINCHANDRA HADIYAL
Versus
INSAFKHAN ADRIMKHAN SANDHI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 03.10.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Morbi in M.A.C.P No.44 of 2019.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi for appellant and learned advocate Ms. Dimple A. Thaker for respondent No.3. Notice could not be served upon respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1. On 30.08.2019, claimant was driving Motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-3-BC-3767, and was heading from Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:39:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4506/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Jamnagar to Morbi at around 4:30 p.m. near Latipar Tankara-
road near Savadi Village, Opponent No.1 came in a Container bearing Registration No.RJ-19-GF-1411 in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Motorcycle. Resultantly, claimant sustained injuries. FIR was lodged against the driver of Container. Claimant filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Opponent No.1 and 2 though served neither remained present nor contested claim application. Opponent No.3-Insurance Company appeared and filed Written Statement at Exhibit-13. Claimant-Chetanbhai Pravinbhai Hadiyal filed examination- in-chief at Exhibit-20 and produced FIR, Panchnama, Injury certificate, disability certificate issued by Dr. D.P. Dholakiya, copy of appointment letter issued by office of Gandhinagar, copy of appointment at Exhibit-35 and 36, copy of pay slip, copy of order regarding completion of fixed pay tenure and appointment in full pay cadre, copy of pay slip of the month of Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:39:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4506/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined March-2024 and other documentary evidence in support of claim petition. After considering the material and evidence on record, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.76,060/- to the claimants with 7% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, appellant-original claimant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
4. At the outset, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that he is not pressing the question of future prospects in the present appeal and he is limiting his submissions so far as non-consideration of disability in reference to future loss of income. It is further submitted that claimant was aged about 26 years and was doing a duty as Taluka Surveyor and was earning Rs.19,950/- per month as fixed pay. He was not getting any Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:39:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4506/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined other allowance. It is further submitted that the disability certificate which was produced at Exhibit-34 indicates that claimant has sustained disability of 28%. However, on consent of parties, disability was reduced to 10% body as a whole. It is further submitted that claimant has sustained injuries on right hand elbow, on right hand fingers, on head, forehead and also sustained injuries on left hand fingers.
5. In support of submissions, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mihir Kiranbhai Gandhi Vs. Jitendrasinh Bhagvansinh Vaghela & Ors passed in First Appeal No.2947 of 2024 and submitted that claimant has sustained disability of 10%, yet learned Tribunal did not grant any compensation for loss of future income and ultimately, the matter was remanded back to the learned Tribunal for its fresh consideration.
Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:39:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4506/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
6. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned judgment and award and submitted that while granting compensation, learned Tribunal has considered the evidence led by claimant and has also considered the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2011 ACJ 1. It is further submitted that on the date of accident, claimant was holding the post of Taluka Surveyor and was earning Rs.19,950/- per month as fixed salary. However, it has come on record that during pendency of claim application, claimant was regularized and was getting the other benefits also. It is submitted that in absence of any evidence that due to the disability, claimant has sustained economic loss, no adverse interference is required to be drawn in the finding arrived at by learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that because of small percentage of disability, there is no loss of income to the claimant. On the contrary as per the deposition of claimant, he is doing his job in the same office and on the date of deposition, his salary was of Rs.44,000/- per month. Learned Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:39:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4506/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Tribunal has considered evidence on record and granted just and reasonable compensation.
7. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties and perused record and proceedings. It appears that claimant was doing duty as Taluka Surveyor and was earning Rs.19,950/- per month as fixed salary. Claimant in his oral deposition has narrated the occurrence of accident, injury sustained and the salary which he was getting on the date of accident. Except the said statements, claimant has not come out with the case that because of disability which has given consent to be reduced at 10%, claimant has suffered loss of income. It is not even the case made out by the claimant that because of vehicular injuries, he has sustained economic loss. On the contrary, record reveals that on the date of deposition, claimant was doing his job at the same office and was drawing a salary of Rs.44,000/- with all other benefits. Claimant has been regularized by the same department where he was serving.
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:39:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4506/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
When claimant was getting all the benefits despite disability of 10%, the question of non-consideration of future loss of income does not survive. Claimant can only be considered for the compensation of future loss of income in the contingencies where because of injuries and disabilities, he has suffered any economic loss and that too if claimant has established by medical evidence that due to disabilities he would not be physically capable of doing work which he was doing prior to accident. The employer too must have relieved him / her from job due to disabilities. As a matter of fact, when claimant gets benefit of services and sustained no economic loss, claimant cannot claim any compensation under the head of future economic loss. Learned Tribunal has considered the decision of Raj Kumar (supra) and has reproduced paragraph Nos.10 and 8 of the said decision. In the said decision, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.14, which as under;
"14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:39:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4506/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the cases of claimant of government employees has stated that there is no need to award compensation under the head of loss of future earnings if claimant continues in Government Service. In the present case also, undisputedly, claimant is in continuation of government job and also been regularized with other benefits.
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:39:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4506/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
10. In the case of Mihir Kiranbhai Gandhi (supra), which has been relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant, claimant of that case was a self-employed person and not a government employee. The facts of the case Mihir Kiranbhai Gandhi (supra) are not akin to the facts of the present case and therefore, the same is not applicable.
11. In view of the background of the aforesaid facts, First Appeal lacks merits and I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The First Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
12. R & P, if any, be sent back to learned Tribunal forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:39:55 IST 2025