IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4051 of 2025 ========================================================== CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus JITENDRASINH BHAGVANSINH VAGHELA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 08/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1.  This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment   and   award   dated   06.03.2025   passed   by   the   Motor Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (Auxi.)   Kheda   Nadiad   in   Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.413 of 2015. 2. Head learned advocate for the appellant. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the learned   Tribunal  has  committed  an  error  in  appreciating  the evidence. It was submitted that the claimant had suffered injury only to four fingers of his foot and no other injury was sustained by him, as reflected in the medical evidence at Exhibit-29. It was further contended that despite this, the learned Tribunal has erroneously   awarded   compensation   of   Rs.4,78,850/-, particularly under the head of future loss of income, which is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC). It was also submitted that the rate of interest awarded at 7.5% per p. 1 annum  is on the lower side. It  was argued  that  there  is no functional disability and that after the accident, the income of the claimant has in fact increased. Hence, the appellant seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and having gone through the record, prima facie it appears that the only ground raised by the appellant–Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the disability, as after the accident there is no functional disability and the income of the claimant has substantially increased. 5. It is pertinent to note that earlier the matter was decided on 4th  May  2023 and compensation  of only  Rs.58,000/-  was awarded. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the original claimant preferred  an appeal  before  this  Court  being  First Appeal  No. 2947 of 2024, wherein this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award in MACP No. 413 of 2015 and remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh hearing. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said order read thus: “7. I fail to substantiate myopic view taken by the learned Tribunal. For the injury caused to the claimant due to accident, amount has to be compensated under principle of just and fair compensation. The finding of learned Tribunal that even afteroad accident income is enhanced and therefore, did not grant compensation for loss of future prospects is totally erroneous finding. 8. Without delving further into merits of the case, the appeal deserves consideration and requires to be p. 2 allowed. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. MACP No.413 of 2015 is remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh hearing and ordered to be listed before learned MAC Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad for final disposal. Both the parties to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 23.12.2024.” 6. Further, this Court had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in  K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Another [2024 JX (SC) 950]. 7. Thus, this Court had already come to the conclusion that the learned Tribunal had earlier failed to properly appreciate the evidence and had taken a myopic view in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the just and proper compensation to   be   awarded. Hence,   the   matter   was   remitted   back   to   the Tribunal. 8. On perusal of the record, it is seen that in the pursis at Exhibit-69, the disability to the extent of 12% was accepted and, by   consent   of   both   the   parties,   the   learned   Tribunal   has considered the same. In view of the earlier observations made by this   Court   in   First   Appeal   No.   2947   of   2024,   nothing   now survives to challenge the findings of the learned Tribunal. 9. This Court is therefore not inclined to entertain the appeal on such flimsy and speculative grounds, particularly when the issue of functional disability and increase in income after the p. 3 accident was already considered in the earlier proceedings. 10. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage. Civil Application,  if any,   stands  disposed  of as having become infructuous. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI p. 4 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.