C/FA/4062/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4062 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== HIRENBHAI GULABRAI VASANI Versus BIRJU G VASANI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 10/11/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The   present   appeal   has  been   preferred  by   the   appellant– original   claimant   against   the   judgment   and   award   dated 17.07.2018   passed   by   the   learned   Motor   Accident   Claims Tribunal   (Auxi.),   Vadodara   in   Motor   Accident   Claim   Petition No.711 of 2004, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs.68,000/–. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 20.03.2004, the present appellant was travelling with opponent No.1 on a Bajaj Caliber motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-6-AN-5421 from Vadodara towards Padra. At that time, opponent No.1 was riding the motorcycle, and the appellant was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached near Atladara Check Post, opponent No.1, while riding the motorcycle at excessive speed and in a C/FA/4062/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 rash and negligent manner, drove it over a metal road, causing the   rear   tyre   to   burst. As   a   result,   the   appellant   sustained serious injuries on his left leg near the knee. The appellant was admitted  as an indoor patient for treatment  at  Accident  and Fracture Hospital of Dr. Pankaj Vyas. An FIR regarding the said accident was lodged against opponent No.1 at Makarpura Police Station. Since opponent No.1 was the driver, opponent No.2 was the   owner,   and   opponent   No.3   was   the   insurer   of   the   said motorcycle, the appellant filed the present claim petition seeking compensation   of  Rs.5,00,000/-   jointly   and  severally   from  the opponents. 4. The  original   claimant  has preferred  this  appeal inter alia contending   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has   not   properly appreciated   the   evidence   on   record   and   has   awarded compensation on the lower side. It is further contended that the learned   Tribunal   has   committed   an   error   in   assessing   the income of the claimant despite the income tax returns  being produced on record and has considered the monthly income at only Rs.3,000/-. No addition towards future prospects has been made, and only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses, which is a very meagre amount. Lastly, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 5. On   the   other   hand,   Ms. Kirti   Pathak,   learned   advocate appearing for respondent No.3–Insurance Company, has 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. Therefore, this Court should not C/FA/4062/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It was 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 called   for. Accordingly,   it   was   prayed   that   the   appeal   be dismissed. 6. Considering the facts  and circumstances  of the case and having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is  an  undisputed  and  admitted   fact  that  on  20.03.2004,  the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider with opponent No.1 on a   Bajaj   Caliber   motorcycle   from   Vadodara   to   Padra. Near Atladara Check Post, opponent No.1 drove the motorcycle at high speed and in a negligent manner over a metal road, causing the rear tyre to burst. The appellant sustained serious injuries on his left knee and was admitted to Dr. Pankaj Vyas’s Accident and Fracture Hospital. 7. The injury certificates are produced at Exhibits 16 and 17, the complaint is at Exhibit 24, the panchnama at Exhibit 25, and the disability certificate at Exhibit 26. Upon perusal of these documents, the involvement of the vehicle in the accident is not in dispute. Opponent No.1 did not step into the witness box and did not adduce any evidence. The fact that opponent No.1 was driving   the   vehicle   and   that   the   vehicle   was   insured   with respondent   No.3–Insurance   Company   is   also   admitted   and undisputed. The learned Tribunal ignored the income tax return certificate produced on record and did not consider the same. As the incident took place in the year 2004, the Tribunal considered C/FA/4062/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/-. The claimant and   respondent   No.3–Insurance   Company   had   agreed   to consider 9% disability, though the doctor assessed the disability at 16%. The same has not been disputed before this Court as well. 8. Upon   perusal   of   the   evidence,   it   appears   from   the   oral testimony that the doctor advised the claimant to take rest for six months; however, the claimant was admitted as an indoor patient for only two days. On examining the record, it is evident that the learned Tribunal committed an error in ignoring the statutory document, namely, the income tax return, which was produced   in   evidence. This   is   not   a   case   where   the   said document could be discarded without assigning any reason. The income tax return is a documentary piece of evidence showing that the claimant’s income for the year 2002 was Rs.64,143/-, for the year 2002–03 was Rs.31,620/-, and for the year 2004 was   Rs.88,798/-. It   is   apparent   that   the   income   tax   return reflecting an income of Rs.88,798/- was filed two days after the accident. Hence,   the   said   return   filed   after   the   incident   is required to be discarded. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the documentary evidence on record ought to have been properly appreciated. In the absence of any cogent reason to discard the said evidence, and considering that in the cross-examination, respondent   No.3   suggested   that   the   claimant   was   earning Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of the incident, which was denied by the   claimant,   the   income   of   the   claimant   is   required   to   be C/FA/4062/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 determined reasonably. Accordingly, for the purpose of awarding just and proper compensation, the claimant’s income is required to be considered at Rs.64,143/- per annum. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, considering that the claimant was   aged   about   32   years   at   the   time   of   the   accident,   the applicable multiplier would be ‘16’. The doctor has certified the disability   to   the   extent   of   9%. As   the   claimant   was   not   in permanent   employment,   a   40%   enhancement   towards   future prospective income, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, is required to be added. 10. Therefore, the annual loss of income comes to Rs.5,773/- (Rs.64,143   ×   9%   =   Rs.5,773/-),   and   after   applying   40% enhancement  towards  future  prospective  income,  the  amount comes to Rs.8,082/- (Rs.5,773 + 40%). Accordingly, the total loss of future income comes to Rs.1,29,312/- (Rs.8,082 × 16). Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,29,312/- towards future loss of income. The   appellant   is,   therefore,   entitled   to   an   additional amount of Rs.77,472/- (Rs.1,29,312 – Rs.51,840) towards future loss of income. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000/- towards actual loss of income, and since the monthly income is now enhanced   from   Rs.3,000/-   to   Rs.5,345/-,   the   actual   loss   of income comes to Rs.10,690/-, instead of Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.4,690/- towards actual loss of income. Page 5 of 6 C/FA/4062/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 11. The   learned   Tribunal   has   awarded   Rs.5,000/-   towards medicines   and   treatment   and   Rs.5,000/-   towards transportation, special diet, etc., which appear to be just and proper. Now,   the   appellant   is   entitled   to   Rs.1,50,002/- (Rs.1,29,312   +   Rs.10,690   +   Rs.5,000   +   Rs.5,000)   instead   of Rs.68,000/-   as   awarded   by   the   Tribunal. Therefore,   the appellant is entitled to an additional  amount of Rs.82,002/-, rounded off to Rs.82,000/-. 12. For   the   reasons   recorded   above,   the   appeal   is  partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 17.07.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.711 of 2004 is hereby modified, and the compensation amount of Rs.68,000/- awarded   by   the   Tribunal   is   enhanced   to   Rs.1,50,002/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.82,000/-, 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 with the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from today. On such deposit, the learned Tribunal shall disburse  the same  to the original  claimant  by account payee cheque, upon due identification and verification. The present appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings, if any, to the learned Tribunal forthwith. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/11/2025 14:18:06