C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1082 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ========================================================== SANJAYBHAI SOMABHAI TADVI Versus KAMLESHBHAI NAGINBHAI VASAVA & 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. 1,2,4,5,6 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 22/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT [1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is ?led by the appellant – original claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 01.11.2022 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at Dabhoi, District Vadodara (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.121 of 2020, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs.11,59,100/- to the appellant – original claimant. [2.0] The brief facts leading to ?ling of present appeal is as follows: [2.1] On 02.01.2016, the appellant herein – original claimant was working as a conductor / cleaner in Eicher Truck No.GJ-06-YY-7341 of opponent No.2 and the driver of Eicher Truck was driving the said p. 2 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 Truck in rash and negligent manner and when the said Truck reached at the place of accident, another Truck bearing No.GJ-06-XX-9925 was lying on the road obstructing the traKc and the driver of Eicher Truck dashed his truck on the backside of stationary truck on account of which the appellant – original claimant got trapped in the cabin of the Eicher Truck in such a way that his both legs were grievously injured. Therefore, the appellant herein – original claimant ?led MACP No.121/2020 seeking compensation. [2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the learned Tribunal held the driver of Eicher Truck solely negligent for the accident and was pleased to award Rs.11,59,100/- to the original claimant however, being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, the appellant – original claimant has ?led the present First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. [3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim appearing for the appellant – original claimant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award is bad, illegal, invalid, unjust and unreasonable and contrary to settled principles and proposition of law. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has miserably erred in drawing highly unjusti?ed and unwarranted inferences from the evidences on record and erred in not computing compensation under the head of future loss of dependancy and in not considering the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.11,000/- at the time of accident and assessing monthly income of the claimant at only Rs.5500/-. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering 100% functional disability of the claimant. In this regard, he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road p. 3 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 Transport Corporation reported in 2022(0) AIJEL-SC 70212 and argued to consider 100% disability and award Rs.10 lakh towards arti?cial limb and loss of amenities. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal. [4.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have chosen not to appear before this Court. [5.0] Learned advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak appearing for the respondent No.3 – insurance company has properly appreciated the evidence in absence of any material or proof to show that the appellant – claimant has suOered 100% functional disability though the doctor has assessed 70% disablement. She has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has properly considered the income of the claimant at Rs.5500/- per month to award just compensation as also the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- towards arti?cial limb and whatever evidence is produced before the learned Tribunal, has been properly appreciated and even under the head of pain, shock and suOering, Rs.50,000/- is appropriately awarded. Hence, no interference is called for and she has requested to dismiss the appeal. [6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant – original claimant and learned advocate for the respondent No.3 – insurance company and perusing the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence produced and adduced by both the parties including the aKdavit of the claimant (Exh.25), complaint (Exh.36), panchnama (Exh.37) and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, wherein it is settled law that negligence is required to be proved in claim petition under section 166 p. 4 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability and not beyond doubt and even as per the complaint (Exh.25) and as the involvement of oOending Eicher Truck, coverage of risk, insurance policy of Eicher Truck is not in dispute, the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the driver of Eicher Truck was solely negligent for the accident and negligence / liability aspect is not in challenge and therefore, present appeal is considered only qua quantum of compensation. [7.0] So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, in order to prove his claim, the claimant has tendered his aKdavit (Exh.25), deposition of Dr. Tushar Modi (Exh.57), copy of letter written by Pramukh Swami Hospital to Dabhoi Police Station (Exh.38), injury certi?cate issued by Pramukh Swami Hospital (Exhs.39 and 40), discharge card of claimant issued by SSG Hospital, Vadodara alongwith medical papers (Exh.41), certi?cate showing permanent disability (Exh.42), case paper given by Bhagwan Mahavir Viklang Sahayata Samiti, Jaipur Camp-Dashrath (Exh.49) and permanent disability certi?cate issued by Dr. Tushar Modi (Exh.64). It is the case of the appellant – claimant that he sustained serious injury on both his legs and was initially admitted in Pramukh Swami Hospital, at Dabhoda and thereafter shifted to SSG Hospital, Vadodara for treatment of both his legs where the claimant was operated upon and his left leg was cut- short from below the knee and right leg was operated for M-3, Tibia Fibula fracture by way of putting rods and screws and was discharged on 11.03.2016. The claimant has stated in his aKdavit that during his treatment, an expense of Rs.500 per day used to occur towards attendant charges and Rs.50,000/- has been spent towards transportation and medicines. It has also been averred that as per the suggestion of Dr. Virendra Sandaliya, the claimant will require a p. 5 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 special type of arti?cial leg for which an expense of Rs.1,60,000/- is likely to occur and is a recurring expense. [7.1] Further, perusing the evidence on record, it is an admitted position on record that the claimant has received treatment in Pramukh Swami Hospital at Dabhoi in the ?rst place and thereafter was referred to SSG Hospital, Vadodara for further treatment. It transpires from injury certi?cates issued by Pramukh Swami Hospital, Dabhoi, SSG Hospital, Vadodara and Certi?cate of Permanent Disability issued by Health and Family Welfare Dept, Govt. of Gujarat produced before the learned Tribunal at Exhs.39, 40 and 42 respectively that the claimant sustained grievous injuries – left leg crush below knee amputation and swelling with deformity in the right lower leg. It further transpires from the record that the claimant has also examined Dr. Tushar Modi at Exh.57, who had issued disability certi?cate (Exh.58) to the claimant, wherein he assessed the disability at 70%. The said doctor has stated in his deposition that claimant’s disability qua the right leg is assessed at 18% whereas for the left leg is assessed as 70%. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that he perused the disability certi?cate (Exh.42) wherein disability qua the left leg only is stated and that considering his injuries and resultant disability, the claimant will not be able to work as driver/cleaner nor will he be able to do any labour work. The said doctor has fairly admitted that fracture injury in the right leg will become half as body as a whole. Thus, the claimant has produced disability certi?cate issued by Health and Family Welfare Dept. of Govt. of Gujarat which assesses his disability at 70% and the said certi?cate is fully corroborated by deposition of Dr. Modi and disability certi?cate (Exh.58) also assesses the disability of claimant at 70%. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has assessed the disability of claimant at 70%. Page 5 of 12 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 [7.2] It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal and/or Court has to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability and claimant’s avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident. The Tribunal / Court has to ?nd out whether the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still eOectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on or whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India, in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).534/2020 dated 16.11.2021 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued certain directions, which read as under: “(iv) As far as the aspect of the issuance of certicate on disability of victims is concerned it is reiterated that the guidelines laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 mandatorily must be followed by the MACTs, in respect of loss of income due to injury/disablement. The District Medical Board is also directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India vide Gazette Notication S. No.61, dated 05.01.2018, for issuance of Disability Certicate in order to bring Pan India uniformity. The consequence is that the MACT would ascertain that permanent disability certicate issued by the District Medical Board or body authorized by it is in accordance with the Gazette Notication alone. Once the certicate is issued in this manner, the same can be marked for purposes of being taken into consideration as evidence without the necessity of summoning the concerned witness to give formal proof of the documents unless there is some reason for suspicion on the document.” Even, in the case of Anoop Maheshwari vs Oriental Insurance Co. reported in (2025 INSC 1075), it has been held by the Apex Court that so far the disability is concerned, the Certi?cate issued by the p. 7 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 government hospital can be accepted, even without a witness being examined however, herein the doctor has given his evidence. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that suKcient reliable evidence is available on record and therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument to assess 100% functional disability of the claimant as canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant -original claimant also in light of the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal and as the learned Tribunal has properly examined the evidence of claimant and the disability certi?cate (Exh.58) wherein it clearly emerges that the claimant is not able to do work as a driver or cleaner. At the same time, claimant has to develop alternative skill or do diOerent type of work to maintain himself and merely because the claimant is not willing to do some other work is not a ground to consider 100% functional disability of the claimant. Hence, no interference is required so far as disability assessed by the learned Tribunal is concerned. [8.0] So far as income of the claimant is concerned, learned Tribunal has assessed income of claimant at Rs.5500/- per month considering the year of accident and nature of job the claimant was engaged in. Further, the claimant himself admitted that he has not produced any evidence to substantiate his claim of monthly income of Rs.11,000/- and therefore, in absence of any evidence, this Court is of considered view that considering the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2016, as the accident took place in the year 2016, monthly income of claimant ought to have been considered at Rs.7500/- to award just compensation. The claimant was aged 21 years at the time of accident and therefore, in view of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, Rs.3000/- (40% of Rs.7500/-) is required to be added towards future prospects and therefore, prospective monthly income would come to Rs.10,500/- p. 8 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 (Rs.7500 + Rs.3000) and as the claimant was aged 23 years at the time of accident, in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier of 17 would apply. As discussed hereinabove, disability is considered at 70% and therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.14,99,400/- [Rs.7350 (70% of Rs.10,500) x 12 x 17) towards future loss of income. Further, it is not in dispute that the claimant remained under treatment for a period of ?ve months and hence, he is entitled to Rs.10,500 x 5 months = Rs.52,500/- under the head of actual loss of income. [9.0] So far as claim of appellant to award Rs.10 lakh towards arti?cial limb relying on the decision in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (Supra) is concerned, if we consider the fact that arti?cial limb is required to be changed periodically that too within span of ?ve or more years then considering the age of the claimant, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,000/- in absence of any evidence or proof however, considering the requirement of prosthetic arti?cial limb for the claimant, this Court is of considered view that compensation under the head of arti?cial limb is required to be reassessed at Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned advocate has relied on the decision in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (Supra) seeking enhancement of compensation towards arti?cial limb but it is needless to say that each case is required to be decided independantly on its own merits and facts. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Suri vs. CBI reported in (2011)5 SCC 708. Herein, learned Tribunal has properly assigned reasons for arriving at the compensation based on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard. The concept of ‘just compensation’ has to p. 9 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. It is true that in the case of death, legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite wide yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just compensation” and determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record. To award the just compensation, the Tribunal has to maintain uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the Tribunal and the Courts is diKcult. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein the Apex Court held that while awarding compensation, the Court is required to follow the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.55, which reads as under: “55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just compensation”. The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts p. 10 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an e>ort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is di?cult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of “standardization” so that a specic and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.” In view of above, reliance placed on the decision of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (Supra) would not avail any assistance to the appellant. [10.0] Even, the compensation under the head of medical expenses of Rs.40,000/- does not call for any interference in absence of any further evidence produced on record. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suOering but considering the nature of injury and 70% disability, this Court deems it ?t to award Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suFering and under the head of special diet, attendant charges and transportation, an amount of Rs.50,000/- be awarded. [11.0] Thus, now the original claimant is entitled to the compensation as under: Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Reassessed by this Court Future loss of income Rs.8,31,600/- Rs.14,99,400/- including additional amount of Rs.6,67,800/- p. 11 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 Actual loss of income Rs.27,500/- Rs.52,500/- including additional amount of Rs.25,000/- Pain, shock and suOering Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- including additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Medical expenses Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- NIL Special diet, attendant and transportation charges Rs.40,000/- Rs.50,000/- including additional amount of Rs.10,000/- Arti?cial Limb Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- including additional amount of Rs.3,40,000/- Lump-sum amount for gel liner Rs.50,000/- NIL Total... Rs.11,59,100/- Rs.22,51,900/- including additional amount of Rs.10,92,800/- Thus, total compensation of Rs.11,59,100/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, and therefore, same is required to be reassessed as Rs.22,51,900/- and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modi?ed to the aforesaid extent. [12.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal is partly allowed. The Impugned judgment and award dated 01.11.2022 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at Dabhoi, District Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.121 of 2020 is modi?ed to the extent that respondent No.3 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit reassessed compensation of Rs.22,51,900/- alongwith accrued interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal, with the learned Tribunal within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of p. 12 C/FA/1082/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 receipt of the present judgment. Rest of the impugned judgment and award remains unaltered. [12.1] After the aforesaid amount of reassessed compensation is deposited by the insurance company, learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the original claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper veri?cation and after following due procedure. [13.0] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid. [14.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay