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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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,
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.
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
