Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs P Manishkumar Laxman on 21 July, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/900/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 900 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
P MANISHKUMAR LAXMAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 21/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. Present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/900/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
is filed against the judgment and award dated 10-11-2016 passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3rd Aux), Bhuj-Kachchh in M.A.C.P.
No.403/2011.
2. By the aforesaid judgment and award, the Tribunal has decided 5
claim petitions arising out of the same accident. The Insurance Company
is in Appeal and the present Appeal is against the award in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.403 of 2011.
3. The facts in nutshell are that the claimant was one of the traveler
in Bolero Jeep bearing No. GJ-12-AE-6387, which was belonging to one
A. P. Bava & Company Pvt. Ltd. and on the day of accident i.e. on 23-
06-2011 at the spot of accident collided with the Truck bearing No.GJ-
12-Z-3681. As a result of accident, the claimant sustained grievous
injuries.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellant has challenged the award on
the ground of quantum as the award granted is exorbitant. Learned
Advocate for the appellant has submitted that in assessing monthly
income of the claimant, the Tribunal has erroneously arrived at average
monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. However, in support of such claim, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/900/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
claimant has failed to produce necessary evidence and only on the basis
of Salary Slip, assessment was made. According to learned Advocate,
nature of employment of claimant was such that loose Salary Slip could
not have been treated as evidence particularly in absence of any tax
returns and therefore, notional income ought to have been considered
only to tune of Rs.3,000/- per month.
4.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that salary
assessed higher in absence of evidence cannot be treated to be just
compensation and therefore, the award requires to be interfered with.
4.2 Learned Advocate for the appellant has also submitted that
disability sustained out of accident is not required to be automatically
equated to the loss of income and loss of income is actually required to
be proved and therefore, also considering the nature of injuries sustained,
assessment of disability is also on the higher side.
5. Learned Advocate for the respondent - claimant has objected
Appeal and has drawn attention of this Court to evidence placed on
record for assessment of his monthly income particularly evidence of
witness recorded vide Exh-58, who has placed on record necessary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/900/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
documents to consider monthly income.
5.1 Learned Advocate for the respondent - claimant has also justified
the impugned award by submitting that the Tribunal has taken into
consideration age of the claimant to be 28 years and therefore, has not
awarded any prospective income and therefore, compensation awarded
has to be treated as just compensation.
5.2 In so far as injury sustained by the claimant is with regard to
fracture injury sustained by the claimant, learned Advocate has submitted
that disability is treated to be 30% as against claim of 72% disability
though under Employees Compensation Act, as per First Schedule,
disability is required to be treated as at 72%. Therefore, also
compensation is just.
6. The Court has taken into consideration rival submissions of the
parties and perused the documents on record. By impugned award, the
claimant has been granted compensation, which is as under:
Sr. No. Particular Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of future earnings 12,24,000/-
2 Medical Expenses 76,283/-
3 Pain and Suffering 20,000/-
4 Nutritional Diet, Attendant Charges and 25,000/-
Transportation Costs
5 Actual Loss of Income 90,000/-
Total 14,35,283/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/900/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
6.1 The contention raised with regard to assessment of monthly income
not being proved by claimant. The Court has taken into consideration
evidence of one witness; Dilip Kishnan Ker, who has deposed at Exh-58,
who has deposed that the claimant was working as an Accountant and in
the year 2011, was drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- and Salary Slip is also
placed on record vide Exh-61.
6.2 The Tribunal was therefore, justified in arriving at conclusion that
monthly income of the claimant after deducting taxes on the salary being
paid to claimant to be Rs.20,000/- is established by the claimant.
6.3 In so far as the contention with regard to the medical disability,
the Tribunal has taken into consideration deposition of Dr. Suresh Doshi
at Exh-53, who has assessed the disability as under:
Left hip forward flexion possible 50 degree 9%
Backward extention possible nil 5%
Abduction possible 10 degree 12%
Adduction possible 10 degree 4%
Internal rotation nil 10%
Left knee Active flexion possible 60 degree 32%
Total: 72%
6.4 In the cross examination of this witness also, the deposition with
regard to disability was not shaken, only some procedural requirement,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/900/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
which were not complied with have come on the fore. However, same
would not be of any consequence in so far as the assessment of disability
is concerned. Thereafter, the Court has taken into consideration Exh-96,
which is Disability Certificate and deposition of Dr. Dipak Suthar at
Exh-93, who has advised regarding restricted use of lower limbs. X-ray
Report and the Certificate in this connection at Exh-93 and Exh-95 are
also examined by the Tribunal and ultimately, disability arrived at is to
the extent of 30% of the whole entire body. The Court has taken into
consideration reasoning given by the Tribunal in making such assessment
and restricted movement post the accident with the claimant is to suffer.
7. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the Court is not inclined to
interfere with impugned judgment and award in so far as the claimant of
M.A.C.P. No.403/2011 is concerned. The Appeal therefore fails and the
same is hereby dismissed.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(NSSG,J)
PARESH SOMPURA
