Gujarat High Court
Joshi Utpalbhai Rughanathbhai vs Isakbhai Valimahmmad Machhliya on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/758/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 758 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
JOSHI UTPALBHAI RUGHANATHBHAI
Versus
ISAKBHAI VALIMAHMMAD MACHHLIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.AMIT R JOSHI(6682) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- original claimant against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Palanpur at Banaskantha in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.127 of 2015, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs.1,26,876/-.
2. Heard Mr. Amit R. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Ankit Y. Bachani, learned advocate for defendant No.1 and Ms. E. Shailaja, learned advocate for defendant No.2.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 30.08.2014, at Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:42:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/758/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined about 1:00 p.m., the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-8-AG-5475 on the correct side of the road at a slow speed and was proceeding towards his home. At that time, near Ladbi Nala on Agola Road, the driver of a tractor bearing Registration No. GJ-8-P-5161 came from behind, driving the said vehicle at a very high and excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed into the rear side of the motorcycle. As a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries and consequential disability. The accident thus occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. Therefore, the claimant has filed the present claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with interest from the opponents.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the original claimant has preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has awarded compensation on the lower side. It is submitted that the claimant has challenged the judgment and award mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not correctly considered his income while determining the compensation. It is further submitted that although the claimant had proved his income, the learned Tribunal concluded that the claimant was working as an LIC Agent and also doing side work as a photographer, and on that basis assessed his income. Despite the claimant having proved his average annual income of Rs. 1,86,919/-, the Tribunal, without assigning any cogent reason, held that there was no future loss of income. It is contended that the Tribunal Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:42:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/758/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined committed an error in assessing only 1/4th (25%) of the proved income of Rs. 1,86,919/- while computing the compensation, although no such reduction was justified in the facts of the case. Instead of considering the proved annual income, the Tribunal has taken the claimant's monthly income as Rs. 3,900/- and the annual income as Rs. 46,800/-, which is contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not properly considering the claimant's actual income of Rs. 1,86,919/-, and the appellant has, therefore, requested that the present appeal be allowed.
5. Learned advocates for the respondents have strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It is submitted that although the income tax returns were filed subsequent to the accident, the learned Tribunal has correctly considered the average income and, as there was no future loss of income or immediate loss proved, the Tribunal, relying on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1, has rightly considered functional disability and 1/4th of the average income of the claimant for awarding just and proper compensation. Therefore, it is submitted that this Court should not interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration the entire material on record, and hence, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:42:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/758/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has properly considered the evidence so far as the issue of liability is concerned, and the same is not disputed. The only issue involved in the present appeal pertains to the quantum of compensation, and therefore this Court is required to deal only with that aspect.
7. It appears that the claimant has tendered his deposition at Exhibit 24. The doctor has been examined at Exhibit 37. The complaint is produced at Exhibit 26. The disability certificate is produced at Exhibit 38. To prove his income, the claimant has produced income tax returns at Exhibits 32 to 34. The charge- sheet filed against opponent No. 1 is produced at Exhibit 31. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,26,876/-.
8. On examining the evidence relating to quantum, it appears that the claimant has stated in his oral testimony that he was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month by working as an LIC Agent and that he was also earning from photography work. The claimant has produced income tax returns at Exhibits 32 to 34 in support of his income, wherein his total income for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 is shown as Rs. 1,77,765/-, Rs. 2,01,694/-, and Rs. 1,81,388/-, respectively. The total income for the three years comes to Rs. 5,60,757/-, and the average Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:42:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/758/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined annual income works out to Rs. 1,86,919/-, corresponding to a monthly income of approximately Rs. 15,576/-.
9. Once the Tribunal accepted the said income, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdipsingh Virendrasingh v. Chauhan Bhupendrakumar Udaysingh, 1980 GLR 221, it further held that there was no functional disability and no actual loss of income suffered by the claimant, and that the claimant's income had increased after the accident. On this basis, the Tribunal considered only 1/4th (25%) of the actual income, i.e., Rs. 46,730/- annually and Rs. 3,900/- monthly, for awarding compensation.
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that once the Tribunal accepted the claimant's annual income of Rs. 1,86,919/- on the basis of statutory evidence such as income tax returns, there was no justification for reducing the same to 1/4th for the purpose of awarding compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has standardized the principles for determining just compensation, including the method of assessing future prospects for self- employed and fixed-salary individuals. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kavita Nagar v. Oriental Insurance Company, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 894, has categorically held that a person earning a fixed salary cannot be denied the benefit of future prospects merely because periodic increments are not Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:42:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/758/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined assured. The Court observed that the rising cost of living affects everyone uniformly, and individuals across all professions and employment types strive to enhance their income over time. Therefore, the denial of future prospects on the ground that the claimant's income had increased after the accident is unjustified and contrary to the principles of just compensation. In view of the above guiding principles, the reduction of the claimant's proven annual income to 1/4th by the learned Tribunal is erroneous, and interference to that extent is warranted.
11. It appears that the claimant was 42 years of age at the time of the accident, his date of birth being 03.08.1972. Hence, as per the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 14 is applicable. To prove the disability, the claimant has produced the disability certificate and examined Dr. Upadhyay at Exhibits 37 and 38. The doctor assessed 26% disability of the body as a whole; however, the learned Tribunal has rightly recorded that the doctor failed to properly assess the disability even after referring to the principles laid down in the medical reference book. The Tribunal has noted that the formula "A+B+C" is applicable only when more than one limb or multiple injuries are involved. In the absence of such injuries, the assessment of 26% disability was on the higher side. The learned Tribunal, after assigning cogent reasons, concluded that there was no physical disability that translated into functional disability, particularly when the claimant's income had increased subsequent to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal considered 13% disability for the purpose of awarding compensation. This Court is of the view Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:42:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/758/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined that the Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the disability at 13%. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 85,176/- towards future loss of income; however, the same requires enhancement.
12. Considering the annual income of Rs. 1,86,919/-, multiplier of 14, and 13% disability, the future loss of income comes to Rs. 3,40,192/- (Rs. 1,86,919 × 14 × 13% = Rs. 3,40,192). Upon recalculating the compensation under various heads, the amount is computed as under:
Future Loss of Income Rs.3,40,192/-
Pain, Shock & Suffering Rs.15,000/-
Spl. Diet, Attendant Charges, etc. Rs.10,000/-
Actual Loss of Income Rs.11,700/-
Medical Expenses Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.3,81,892/-
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award are modified, and the compensation amount of Rs. 1,26,876/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,81,892/-. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 2,55,016/-, in roundup total Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with accrued interest before the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from today. Upon such deposit, the entire awarded amount be disbursed and released in favour of the claimants after due Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:42:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/758/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined verification by transferring the said amount to the account of the claimants either by RTGS or NEFT mode. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings, if any, to the learned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:42:47 IST 2025