IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1010 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ========================================================== RAVINDRA MADHUBHAI PARMAR Versus DIPAKSINH KALUSINH & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 11/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT [1.0] By way of present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant – original claimant has assailed the impugned judgment and award dated 03.11.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.357/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition in favor of the original claimant and awarded Rs.1,65,019/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition. [2.0] The brief facts leading to Fling of present appeal are as follows: [2.1] On 03.11.2012, the claimant was riding as a pillion rider on two wheeler bearing registration No.GJ-01-BE-8958 being driven by his colleague and while they were returning after delivering goods, at the p. 2 place of accident, driver of Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-01-AP- 8130 came with full speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the Scooty of the claimant on the front side as a result of which the claimant and driver of Scooty fell down on road and sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the original claimant Fled the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakh. [2.2] After considering the evidence produced on record by the respective parties, learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold the original opponent No.1 – driver of oKending Jeep to be solely negligent for the accident. Hence, present First Appeal is Fled by the appellant – original claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. [3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Manan Paneri appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in granting meager compensation by not awarding compensation under the head of future prospective income by assigning reason that after the accident, income of claimant has increased. He has submitted that though the claimant sustained 23% disablement, which is proved vide document produced at Exh.89, the learned Tribunal has assessed the disablement of claimant only at 15% and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajaykumar & Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 343 learned Tribunal has refused to award just compensation. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar reported in (2022) 13 SCC 790 and requested to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. [4.0] Learned advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak appearing for the respondent No.3 – insurance company has opposed the First Appeal on the ground that there is no any future loss of earning caused to the claimant after p. 3 the accident as the income of the claimant has increased and even witness in this regard is examined who has deposed that at the time of accident gross income of the claimant was only Rs.6815/- and subsequently, same has increased upto Rs.15,000/- in the year 2018 and even salary slip is also produced on record. Hence, there is no future loss of income caused to the claimant and learned Tribunal has not committed any error in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar (Supra). She has further submitted that in view of there being no loss of income and increase in the income of claimant, the claimant is not entitled to get any addition in the income towards future prospects and learned Tribunal has rightly considered 15% disablement of the claimant considering his earning capacity. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the present appeal. [5.0] Since the only issue raised in the present appeal is of quantum of compensation and involvement, liability of insurance company and factum of accident is not challenged, present appeal is considered in narrow compass. [6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant – original claimant and learned advocate appearing 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 aNadvit of the claimant (Exh.51), complaint (Exh.55), panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.56) as well as 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 held that it is settled law that negligence is required to be proved in claim p. 4 petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability and not beyond doubt and even considering the fact that the driver of oKending jeep has not stepped into the witness box, learned Tribunal has held the driver of oKending jeep to be solely negligent for the accident. [7.0] Perusing the record & proceedings, it appears that the learned Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaykumar (Supra) has come to the conclusion that after the accident, income of the claimant has increased upto Rs.15,000/- and hence, there is no actual loss of income and hence, no any compensation is awarded under the head of future loss of income but only under the head of loss of amenities, Rs.42,000/- is awarded and Rs.18,150/- only is awarded under the head of actual loss of income and thus total compensation of Rs.1,65,019/- is awarded. [7.1] Perusing the record, it appears that in order to prove the income, the appellant – original claimant has Fled his aNdavit for examination in chief at Exh.51 wherein he has stated that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs.6816/- per month by working with Associated Lighting Systems and doing work of delivery of goods and electric Fttings. Though the learned Tribunal has after appreciating the evidence and salary certiFcate produced at Exh.88 has accepted the monthly income of Rs.6150/- as notional income considering the fact that the accident took place in October, 2012 though while awarding the compensation, keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaykumar (Supra), as salary of the claimant has increased after the accident, future loss is not awarded considering the salary certiFcate of the year 2018 which shows the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/-. This Court is p. 5 of considered view that there is no rule or law that after the accident merely because income has increased, compensation is required to be refused towards future loss of income. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2022(0) AIJEL-SC 70212. Hence, considering monthly income of claimant at Rs.6150/- and as the claimant was aged 39 years of age at the time of accident, in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, addition of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made and therefore, adding Rs.2460/- (40% of Rs.6150), monthly future loss of income would come to Rs.8610/- (Rs.2460 + Rs.6150). To that extent, the impugned judgment and award is required to be modiFed. [7.2] So far as disablement sustained by the claimant is concerned, perusal of medical certiFcate (Exh.58) reveals that the claimant had sustained fracture of tibia Fbula in right leg and was operated for the same. The disability certiFcate (Exh.89) shows disability at 23% body as a whole however, the learned Tribunal has assessed 15% disability of the claimant. It is needless to say that always permanent or partial disablement adversely aKect the earning capacity and routine work of an individual. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of considered view that 15% disablement is rightly assessed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, applying 15% disability, the appellant – original claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,32,380/- [Rs.1291 (15% of Rs.8610) x 12 x 15] towards future loss of income. [7.3] So far as compensation awarded under the head of loss of p. 6 amenities is concerned, it is required to be noted that in view of the compensation awarded under the head of future loss of income, the compensation under the head of loss of amenities is not required to be awarded and therefore, the impugned judgment and award is required to be modiFed to that extent. [7.4] So far as compensation awarded under other heads is concerned, the learned Tribunal has appropriately awarded compensation under the heads of actual loss of income, pain, shock and suKering, special diet, attendant and transportation charges and actual medical expenses respectively at Rs.18,450/-, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.79,569/- and to that extent, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. [8.0] Hence, the original claimant is now entitled to get the compensation as under: Heads Awarded by Tribunal Reassessed by this Court Future loss of income NIL Rs.2,32,380/- Actual Loss of income Rs.18,450/- Rs.18,450/- Pain, shock and suKering Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Spl. Diet, attendant and transportation charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Actual Medical Expenses Rs.79,569/- Rs.79,659/- Total Compensation Rs.1,65,019/- Rs.3,55,489/- including additional amount of Rs.1,90,470/- Thus, the compensation of Rs.1,65,019/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side for the reasons recorded hereinabove and therefore, same is required to be enhanced to the aforesaid extent i.e. p. 7 Rs.3,55,489/- and hence, the appellant – original claimant is entitled to get reassessed compensation of Rs.3,55,489/- and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modiFed to the aforesaid extent. [9.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, First Appeal is partly allowed and impugned judgment and award dated 03.11.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.357/2013 is modiFed and respondent No.3 – insurance company is directed to deposit reassessed amount of compensation of Rs.3,55,489/- to be paid to the appellant – original claimant alongwith accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. [9.1] After deposit of the entire reassessed amount of compensation, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper veriFcation and after following due procedure and strictly in accordance with the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal. [9.2] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid. [10.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay