RANJITSINH MOHANLAL PATEL vs KRISHNA SHANKARBHAI MALI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
Reserved On : 22/09/2026
Pronounced On : 16/10/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 657 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RANJITSINH MOHANLAL PATEL
Versus
KRISHNA SHANKARBHAI MALI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in the present appeal under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to the judgment and award
dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Vyara in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.126 of 2007.
1.1 By the impugned judgment and award, the learned
Tribunal, while partly allowing the claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with proportionate costs and
interest, awarded a sum of Rs.3,79,000/- towards
Page 1 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
compensation, together with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization, holding opponent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation.
1.2 Essentially, the present appeal is preferred seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
2. Succinctly stated, the essential facts gleaned from
the impugned judgment are as follows:
2.1 On the unfortunate day of 25th June 2007, the
claimant, along with other passengers, was travelling in a
luxury bus bearing registration No. GJ-5-U-8944. The driver of
the luxury bus was driving the vehicle at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, endangering human life. While
attempting to overtake a truck proceeding ahead near
Bajipura, in the vicinity of Sumul Dairy, the driver lost control
over the steering, as a result of which, the luxury bus rammed
into the road divider. Consequently, several passengers
travelling in the bus sustained multiple injuries. The claimant,
Ranjitsinh Mohanlal Patel, was one of those unfortunate
passengers who sustained multiple injuries in the accident.
2.2 FIR came to be registered against the driver
of the luxury bus at Valod Police Station vide C.R. No. I-45 of
2007.
Page 2 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
2.3 At the time of the accident, the claimant, Ranjitsinh
Mohanlal Patel, was 25 years of age. He had completed his
degree in Electrical Engineering and was pursuing his MBA.
According to the claimant, the injuries sustained in the road
accident resulted in the amputation of his left upper limb
above the elbow, thereby severely affecting his future
prospects.
2.4 Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the claimant sought
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under various heads.
2.5 The learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of
Rs.3,79,000/- towards compensation with following heads:-
Pain,shock and suffering Rs.50,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.1,69,000/
Special diet, etc. Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life
Rs.1,50,000/-
Total Rs.3,79,000/-
2.6 The learned Tribunal did not award compensation
towards loss of future earning capacity and loss of future
prospects, mainly on the ground that, despite the accidental
injuries, the claimant had completed his MBA and secured
employment with different companies. The learned Tribunal
observed that, rather than suffering a decline in income, the
claimant's income had increased over the time and, therefore,
Page 3 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
he is not entitled to compensation under the aforesaid heads.
2.7 Being aggrieve, the claimant has preferred the
present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel Mr. Hiren Modi, appearing
for the appellant-claimant, and learned counsel Mr. Sunil
Parikh, appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company.
4. Drawing the attention of this Court to the findings
recorded by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 22 of the
common judgment disposing of as may as four claim petitions,
learned counsel Mr. Modi submitted that the conclusion that
the claimant was not entitled to compensation towards loss of
future earning capacity and loss of future prospects merely
because his income had increased after the accident is
contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions.
4.1 Learned counsel Mr. Modi submitted that the
learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant was
only 25 years of age at the time of the accident, had
completed his B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering and
was pursuing his MBA. Despite completing his MBA after
sustaining the accidental injuries, the claimant's career
prospects were adversely affected by the amputation of his
left upper limb above the elbow, which restricted his
employment opportunities and earning potential. He
Page 4 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
submitted that the claimant, who otherwise had the potential
for a bright professional career, was compelled to pursue
employment subject to the limitations arising from the injuries
sustained in the accident.
4.2 It is further submitted that the approach adopted
by the learned Tribunal was unduly conservative and
inconsistent with the underlying object of awarding just, fair
and reasonable compensation under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, learned counsel Mr. Modi
urged this Court to enhance the compensation by awarding
appropriate amounts towards loss of future earning capacity
and loss of future prospects.
4.3 In addition to the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel Mr. Modi submitted that the learned Tribunal had
awarded only Rs.50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering,
notwithstanding the fact that the claimant had suffered
amputation of his left upper limb above the elbow. He,
therefore, urged this Court to enhance the compensation
under the said head by awarding an appropriate amount.
4.4 It is further submitted that, since the claimant was
unmarried at the time of the accident, the amputation of his
left upper limb above the elbow had adversely affected his
matrimonial prospects. He, therefore, sought appropriate
compensation towards loss of matrimonial prospects. He also
prayed for enhancement of compensation under the other
Page 5 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
relevant heads.
4.5 On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel Mr.
Modi urged this Court to enhance the compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Sunil Parikh,
appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company, supported
the impugned judgment and award. Referring to the findings
recorded in paragraph 22 of the judgment, he submitted that
the learned Tribunal had duly considered the claimant's
employment history after the accident. The claimant had
initially secured employment with Religare Commodities
Company and thereafter with MK Commodity Books Limited,
during which period his annual income increased from
Rs.1,44,000/- to Rs2,16,000/-. Subsequently, he secured
permanent employment with Oriental Bank of Commerce at a
monthly salary of Rs.14,970/-.
5.1 Learned counsel Mr. Parikh submitted that the
aforesaid circumstances clearly demonstrate that the
accidental injuries and the amputation of the claimant's left
upper limb above the elbow had not adversely affected his
career progression or earning capacity. On the contrary, his
income had increased over the time, indicating that his
professional prospects had continued to improve despite the
injuries sustained in the accident.
Page 6 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
5.2 Upon the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
Mr. Parikh submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly
declined to award compensation towards loss of future
earning capacity and loss of future prospects. He, accordingly,
urged this Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the
impugned judgment and award.
6. Regard being had to the rival submissions
canvassed by learned counsels for the parties and peruse the
record and proceedings, including the impugned judgment
and award. At the outset, let me refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N.K.V.Bros.Private Limited
Versus M.Karumai Ammal reported in 1980 (3) SCC 457 ,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the approach
to be adopted while adjudicating claims for compensation
arising out of motor vehicle accidents under Section 110-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, corresponding to Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as under:
“3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country,
specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This
proverbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has been
observed by us earlier in other case, to draw an initial
presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that
innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not
escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some
obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred
from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court
should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic
maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often
distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to
judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise
sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of
careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving
of public transport must bring owner and driver to their
Page 7 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
responsibility to their "neighbour". Indeed, the State must
seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second
aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or
undue parsimony practised by tribunals. We must remember
that judicial tribunals are State organs and Art. 41 of the
Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for state relief
against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no
justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor
which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of
accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded,
being postponed by several years. The States must appoint
sufficient number of tribunals and the High Court should insist
upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already
sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed
justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard.”
7. Yet another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in case of K. Suresh V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd
(2012) 12 SCC 274, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows :
(SCC p. 276, para 2)
2. There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the
heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in
the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has
to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore,
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the
Act) stipulates that there should be grant of just
compensation. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of
law to determine just compensation which is neither a
bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a
pittance.
8. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Rashmirekha Tripathi and Anr. v. The
Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Shriram General Insurance
Company Limited and Others , 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 654 , while
reiterating the settled principle that the object of the claim
proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, is to award just
and fair compensation. Relevant observations of the Hon’ble
Page 8 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
Supreme Court as under:
15. At the outset, we must reiterate that it is settled law that
the objective behind the claim process in the Motor Vehicles
Act 1988 is to grant ‘just and fair compensation’. Recently, a
two-judge Bench of this Court in V. Pathmavathi and Ors. v.
Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.7 had
succinctly summarised this position and observed:
“12. We ought to remind ourselves, at the outset,
that when an individual dies as a result of a fatal
road accident and his distressed dependents apply
for compensation either from the owner of the
vehicle responsible for the death or the insurance
company with whom such vehicle is insured, no
amount of money can truly compensate for the
loss. Compensation is nothing but a rough
estimate, being a token attempt to ease the
financial burden on the dependents. Take
consortium, for example. It is impossible to put a
price on the loss of a loved one's companionship.
Spousal, filial or parental compensation are all
about acknowledging the emotional void but the
payout can never be more than a rough
approximation. It is like trying to measure the
immeasurable. Considering the income of the
deceased, the needs of his dependents and the
emotional toll of the loss, the best that can be
ensured is that the compensation is fair and
reasonable, without being either arbitrary or
niggardly. This would be in accord with the
foundational principle governing the determination
of “just compensation” under Section 168 of the
Act.
13. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9
SCC 65], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held
that the purpose of award of compensation under
section 166 read with section 168 of the Act is to
place the distressed dependents of the victim of a
fatal road accident, if the victim had been the sole
bread earner, in almost the same position
financially if he lived his natural span of life. It is
obviously not intended to put such distressed
dependents in a better financial position in which
they would otherwise have been if the accident had
not occurred. At the same time, the determination
Page 9 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
of compensation is not an exact science and the
exercise involves an assessment based on
estimation and conjectures, here and there, as
many imponderable factors and unpredictable
contingences have to be taken into consideration.
Obviously, award of damages in each case would
depend on the particular facts and circumstances
of the case but the element of fairness in the
amount of compensation so determined is the
ultimate guiding factor.” (emphasis supplied)
16. Similarly, another two-judge Bench of this Court in
Anant v. Pratap and Anr.8 , had expounded that ‘the
purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act
is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the
position prior to the accident.’
9. This Court, in case of Anisaben Sharifbhai Solanki
and Others v. Sachinbhai Bharatbhai Suvagiya and Others,
2025 SCC OnLine Guj 664, while emphasising the need to
adopt an approach that ensures just and fair compensation in
consonance with Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
expressed its concern over the insensitive approach adopted
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. The relevant
observations made in paragraph 12 are as under:
12. Adopting sensitive approach is a crucial for the MACT.
The tribunal plays key and vital role in ensuring not only
justice to the victim of the motor accident, but also to
determine just and fair compensation. The MACT is expected
to have empathy and has to prevent subsequent trauma by
taking sensitive approach feeling pain of the victim of the
road accident, because the victim of the road accident and
their family often dealt with physical and emotional trauma
and empathetic approach can provide them sense of support
and understanding, which may nurse the pain of the victim
and put them back to the pre-accident stage at least.
Moreover, compensating approach can prevent effect of
emotional stress that might arise from the adversarial legal
process. The MACT entrusting summary jurisdiction to
decide the issue keeping in mind the principle of paying just
and fair compensation u/s 168 of the MV Act. Ultimately,
Page 10 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
goal of the Tribunal is to deliver justice.
10. It is evident that the learned Tribunal has
committed a serious and manifest error in appreciating the
facts of the case as well as the settled principles of law
governing the award of just, fair and equitable compensation.
The decision to decline compensation under the heads of loss
of future earning capacity and loss of future prospects is
wholly unjustified and irrational, as such reflects willful blind
approach that cannot sustain in law.
11. It is true that the claimant did not contend that he
had suffered a complete loss of income or that he was
rendered wholly incapable of performing any work
whatsoever. However, the material available on record
unmistakably establishes that, as a result of the crush injury
sustained in the accident, the claimant lost his left upper limb
above the elbow, necessitating amputation. The discharge
card produced at Exhibit 37 records the following injuries:
SHREE MAHAVIR GENERAL HOSPITAL
Sagrampura, Surat
DISCHARGE CARD
Name: Patel Ranjitbhai Mohanbhai
Age/Sex: 26 years/Male
IR No.: 23016
Bed No.: 423
Consultant: Dr. Dayanidhi N. Desai
__________________________________________________
Page 11 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
Clinical Notes
Alleged History:
History of an accidental injury to the left upper limb on
25.06.2007at approximately 7:00 a.m. near Sumul Dairy,
Surat. The remaining details are illegible.
On Admission
The patient sustained a crushing injury to the left upper
limb, with an open wound and bleeding. No motor response
was noted in the left upper limb. The radial pulse was
absent, and the left hand was bluish, discoloured and cold.
Other Examination Findings:
Chest: Clear; air entry present bilaterally.
Pupils: Equal and reactive to light.
Abdomen: Soft.
Blood Pressure: 130/80 mmHg.
CNS: No abnormality detected.
Diagnosis
Injury to the elbow with a comminuted fracture of the
humerus and elbow dislocation. Brachial artery injury with
ischaemia of the forearm and hand.
11. The disability certificate produced at Exhibit 38
records the opinion of the orthopaedic doctor as under:
EW CIVIL HOSPITAL, RING ROAD, SURAT
Certificate No.: 479 Date: 30.01.2008
CERTIFICATE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
This is to certify that Shri/Smt./Kum. Ranjitsinh Mahembhai
Patel, son/wife/daughter of Shri Mohanbhai Majanbhai Patel,
aged 26 years, male/female, bearing Registration No. 19631,
has undergone amputation above/below the knee and is
physically disabled. He/She has 80% permanent physical
impairment in relation to the affected limb.
Page 12 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
12. The Civil Hospital, Ring Road, Surat, assessed the
claimant's physical disability at 80%, as evidenced by the
aforesaid certificate produced at Exhibit 38. Even the
certificate issued by Dr. D.N. Desai, produced at Exhibit 39,
records the same percentage of disability of the upper limb.
13. Apt to note that the learned Tribunal appears
either to have overlooked the aforesaid evidence of permanent
disability or failed to appreciate its significance while
determining the compensation payable to the claimant. Such
an approach is wholly inexplicable and cannot be sustained.
14. The present case involves permanent physical
impairment assessed at 80%, arising from the amputation of
the claimant's left upper limb above the elbow. The functional
consequences of such an injury cannot be disregarded merely
because the claimant subsequently secured employment.
15. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in M.
Paramesh v. V.R.L. Logistics Limited and Anr., reported in
2026 LiveLaw (SC) 641 , considered a case involving
amputation of the right leg above the knee, where the
physical disability had been assessed at 70%, and held that
the functional disability could be assessed at 100%. The
relevant observations and findings recorded in paragraphs 22
and 26 are as under:
22. From the above observations in Raj Kumar (supra),
it becomes crystal clear that though the physical
Page 13 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
disability may be assessed at a particular percentage,
the functional disability affecting earning capacity may,
depending upon the nature of avocation carried on by
the injured, be assessed at a higher percentage
including 100%. The assessment of compensation in
cases of permanent disability cannot be undertaken by
mechanically applying the percentage of physical
disability as the percentage of economic loss.
23. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the
appellant was working as a mason at the time of the
accident. The work of a mason is essentially a physical
and manual avocation requiring continuous use and
support of both legs. The material on record further
reveals that on account of the injuries suffered in the
accident, the appellant underwent amputation of his
right leg above the knee.
24. By virtue of the aforesaid amputation, the appellant
has effectively lost his capacity to continue the work of
a mason which was admittedly the sole avocation being
pursued by him for earning his livelihood. It is not even
the case of the respondents that the appellant was
engaged in any other sedentary occupation or that
despite the amputation suffered by him, his earning
capacity remained unaffected.
25. The amputation of the right leg above the knee has
not merely caused physical disability to the appellant
but has rendered him incapable of effectively carrying
on the manual and physical work which constituted his
only source of livelihood. In such circumstances,
restricting the loss of earning capacity to 70% merely
on the basis of physical disability would not be justified.
26. Having regard to the nature of avocation carried on
by the appellant, the extent of injuries suffered by him
and the principles laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar
(supra), we are of the considered opinion that the
functional disability suffered by the appellant is
required to be assessed at 100% and not at 70% as
assessed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High
Court. Consequently, the loss of earning capacity
suffered by the appellant deserves to be computed by
treating the functional disability at 100%. Taking the
monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 12,000/- with
addition of 40% towards future prospects and applying
the multiplier of ‘17’ as adopted by the Courts below,
the compensation payable towards loss of earning
capacity is recalculated accordingly.
Page 14 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
16. Turning to the facts of the present case, it is an
admitted position that, at the time of the accident, the
claimant was pursuing his MBA after having completed his
degree in Electrical Engineering and was not engaged in any
avocational or professional employment. After the accident, he
secured employment with Religare Commodities Company
and thereafter with MK Commodity Books Limited. During
this period, his annual income increased from Rs.1,44,000/- to
Rs.2,16,000/-. Subsequently, he secured employment with
Oriental Bank of Commerce at a monthly salary of Rs.14,970/-.
16.1 The question that arises is whether the claimant's
subsequent employment and increase in income, by himself,
establish that he suffered no loss of earning capacity or that
his future earning prospects remained wholly unaffected by
the amputation of his left upper limb above the elbow. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the answer must be in the
negative.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering a
similar contention in Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited v. Priyanka Das and Others, 2026 INSC 950,
emphasised the entitlement of injured claimant to
compensation towards loss of future earning capacity and
future prospects. The relevant observations as under:
“8B. The Insurer argued that the Tribunal’s assessment of a
60% functional disability was too high because the Claimant
continued to work at IBM (now Concentrix Daksh) and had
received salary increments. The Claimant (PW9), in her
Page 15 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
testimony, clarified that she cannot see at all and manages
her work exclusively through special software provided by
her employer. The Tribunal took into account additional
evidence filed via CM No. 4895-CII of 2018, i.e., a letter from
her employer’s authorised signatory, which stated that since
joining in 2003, the Claimant secured only four promotions
up to 2018, confirming as a matter of fact that she lost out
on career growth due to the accident. Based on her severe
physical condition, i.e., blindness, pelvic injuries, permanent
stoma and the impact on her career trajectory, it was held
that the 60% assessment was on the lower side and was
enhanced to 80% for her functional disability.
“C. The Court awarded 50% for loss of future prospects
because the Claimant was treated as a permanent employee
at her workplace. Relying on this Court’s Judgment in Pappu
Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors.1, the High Court held
that the assessment of permanent disablement must focus on
the resulting loss of the Claimant’s income-generating
capacity, rather than merely the medical percentage of limb
impairment, thereby making the multiplier method
applicable. Accordingly, a multiplier of ‘16’ was appropriate
given the Claimant’s age
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mohd.
Sabir @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, (2023) 20 SCC774 while
referring to the judgment in Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande,
(2017) 3 SCC 351 , held that the Tribunal is required to assess
whether and to what extent the physical disability suffered by
the injured has adversely affected his earning capacity.
Paragraph 13 of the said judgment reads as under:
“13.To assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded,
this Court has to assess whether the permanent disability
caused has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the
Appellant, as held by this Court in the case of Sandeep
Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and Anr. 2. The relevant paragraph
of the judgment is quoted hereunder :-
“The crucial factor which has to be taken into
consideration thus is to assess whether the
Page 16 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
permanent disability has any adverse effect on the
earning capacity of the injured. We feel that the
conclusion of the MACT on the application of
aforesaid test is erroneous. A very myopic view is
taken by the MACT in taking the view that 70%
permanent disability suffered by the appellant
would not impact the earning capacity of the
appellant. The MACT thought that since the
appellant is a chartered accountant he is supposed
to do sitting work and therefore his working
capacity is not impaired….. A person who is
engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his
duties may not be able to match the earning in
comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily
able. Movements of the appellant have been
restricted to a large extent and that too at a young
age.”
19. More recently judgment in case of V. Pathmavathi
and Others v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Company
Limited and Anr., AIR 2026 SC(Civil) 719, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further recognized loss of future
prospects as an integral component of just compensation and
has held that the benefit thereof cannot be confined only to
persons in permanent government employment. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paras 17 and 18 held as under:
“17. Equally significant is the High Court’s omission to
consider grant of any amount towards future prospects.
Assessment of income and the grant of future prospects are
not matters of judicial discretion in the abstract but are now
firmly structured by authoritative precedents. Having regard
to the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the law on this
aspect is no longer res integra. The Constitution Bench
clarified therein that the concept of future prospects is an
integral component of “just compensation” and is not
confined only to those in permanent government
employment. While this Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC15
adopted a structured approach, Santosh Devi v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd16 marked a jurisprudential shift by
recognising the economic realities faced by self-employed
persons and those on fixed salaries. Although Santosh Devi
(supra) was later held not to be a binding precedent on
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
account of judicial discipline, the Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi (supra) itself incorporated, refined and
standardised the principle of future prospects for such
categories by holding as follows:
59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421] should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it
was taking a different view than what has been stated in
Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121], a
judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate
Bench of the same strength cannot (2009) 6 SCC 121 (2012)
2 SCC 421 take a contrary view than what has been held by
another coordinate Bench.
59.2. As Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54]
has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari
[Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan , (2013) 9 SCC 65], which
was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh
[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54] is not a binding
precedent.
59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to
50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should
be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established income
means the income minus the tax component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction
for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma
[Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121] which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC
121] read with para 42 of that judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
Page 18 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years.
18. Paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra) unequivocally
mandates that where the deceased was self-employed or on
a fixed salary and below the age of 40 years, an addition of
40% of the established income towards future prospects is
compulsory. This is not a matter of choice, but a binding
norm flowing from Article 141 of the Constitution.”
20. Thus, apposite to note that, a victim of road
accident continue to earn and progress after recovering from
the accidental injuries cannot by itself constitute a ground to
deny compensation for loss of future earning capacity or
future prospects. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343,
has authoritatively held that
the percentage of physical disability cannot mechanically be
equated with the percentage of loss of earning capacity; the
latter must be assessed with reference to the claimant’s
occupation and the functional impact of the injuries. Further,
in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2020) 17 SCC 688,
the Court recognised that compensation for future prospects
may be awarded in cases of permanent disablement, where
legally justified. Accordingly, the claimant’s continued
earnings cannot be treated as an automatic bar to such
compensation. The Tribunal must undertake a realistic
assessment of the residual disability, its impact on future
earning capacity and the income the claimant could
reasonably have earned but for the accident. However, where
the evidence establishes that the disability has caused no
diminution in earning capacity, compensation under that
Page 19 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
particular head cannot be awarded merely on the basis of
physical disability.
21. The mere fact that a victim of a road accident
continues to earn income after recovering from the injuries
cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to deny compensation
towards loss of future earning capacity or future prospects.
The relevant consideration is not merely whether the injured
claimant continues to work or receive the same income, but
whether the injuries have resulted in permanent functional
disability affecting his capacity to earn, efficiency,
occupational opportunities or ability to sustain his previous
level of performance. The continuance of employment or
earnings may be a relevant circumstance, but it is not
conclusive of the absence of economic loss. Medical disability
and functional disability must be assessed in the context of
the claimant’s occupation and the actual consequences of the
injuries. Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is
intended to redress the loss attributable to the accident and
must be determined on the evidence and the applicable legal
principles.
22. In view of the aforesaid dictum, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to
compensation towards loss of future earning capacity and
future prospects. The amputation of his left upper limb above
the elbow has undoubtedly impaired his physical capabilities
and adversely affected the range of professional opportunities
available to him. The medical evidence establishes physical
Page 20 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
disability of 80%. Having regard to the nature of the injury,
the claimant's educational qualifications and the functional
implications of the amputation, the said percentage is
accepted as the functional disability for the purpose of
assessing the loss of future earning capacity in the facts of the
present case.
23. The accident occurred on 25th June 2007. At the
relevant time, the claimant was pursuing his MBA after
having completed his degree in Electrical Engineering. His
educational certificates, produced at Exhibits 42 to 52, bear
testimony to his academic qualifications and the professional
potential he possessed at that stage of his life. There can be
little doubt that, in the absence of the accident and the
consequential amputation, the claimant had the higher
potential to pursue a promising professional career. Although
no direct evidence has been adduced to establish the precise
income that the claimant would have earned at the time of the
accident, his educational qualifications and academic pursuits
cannot be disregarded while determining his notional income.
The claimant cannot be equated, without more, with an
ordinary clerk or a person engaged in skilled employment
earning only the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant
time.
24. For the purpose of comparison, the monthly
remuneration of a clerk in the State of Gujarat at the relevant
time, including dearness allowance, would have been
approximately Rs.2,700/-. However, having regard to the
Page 21 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
claimant's degree in Electrical Engineering, his pursuit of an
MBA and his demonstrated academic potential, this Court
considers it just and reasonable to assess his notional monthly
income at Rs5,000/- for the purpose of calculating
compensation.
The claimant's school-leaving certificate, produced
at Exhibit 41, records his date of birth as 2nd October 1981.
The accident occurred on 25th June 2007. Accordingly, the
claimant was approximately 25 years old on the date of the
accident. The multiplier and future-prospect percentage must,
therefore, be determined with reference to his legally
established age and the applicable principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and
reiterated in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680,. The multiplier of 17
and addition of 40% towards future prospects, as proposed
above, require reconsideration in light of the claimant's age
on the date of the accident.
As regards non-pecuniary damages, the amounts
awarded under the heads of actual medical expenses and
other proved expenses are maintained.
25. However, considering the gravity of the injury, the
permanent loss of the claimant's left upper limb above the
elbow and the consequent physical and psychological
Page 22 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
suffering, the amount awarded towards pain, shock and
suffering is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- .
Similarly, the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards special
diet, nourishment and transportation is enhanced to
Rs25,000/-. The compensation awarded towards loss of
amenities and enjoyment of life is maintained. Further, having
regard to the fact that the claimant was unmarried at the time
of the accident and had suffered amputation of his left upper
limb at a young age, this Court considers it appropriate,
subject to the evidence and applicable legal principles, to
award Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of matrimonial prospects.
As regards interest, the rate of 8% per annum awarded
by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to 9% per annum,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, claimant
is entitled to following amount of compensation:
Under the Head of Compensation
of Rs.
Future loss of income
Monthly income = Rs. 5,000/-
11,42,400/-
Prospective income
(Rs.5,000 + 40%)= Rs. 7,000/-
Disability 80%
(Rs.7,000 x 80 ) = Rs. 5,600/-
Page 23 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
Total Income
(Rs.5600x12 x 17) =Rs. 11,42,400/-
Matrimonial prospects 1,00,000/-
Pain, Shock & Suffering 2,00,000/-
Special diet and transportation, etc. 25,000/-
Grand Total 14,67,400/-
Less awarded amount of
compensation by Tribunal
3,79,000/-
Enhanced amount 10,88,400/-
Interest @9%
26.1 The claimant is entitled to enhanced amount of
compensation of Rs.10,88,400/- @ 9% interest per annum
from the date of claim petition till realization.
26.2. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation with accrued
interest within a period of 8 weeks from today after giving
credit for the amount already deposited or paid pursuant to
the impugned judgment and award. The amount already
deposited or paid shall be duly set off against the total amount
payable.
26.3. Upon deposition of the entire amount, the learned
Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount lying in the FDR
and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if
Page 24 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026
C/FA/657/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240401132014)
any, to the claimant/s by Account Payee Cheque/NEFT/RTGS,
after proper verification and after following due procedure.
26.4 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall
deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with
rules/law.
27. Resultantly, the present First Appeal is allowed to
the aforesaid extent. The judgment and award dated
26.11.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Vyara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.126 of
2007, is modified to the aforesaid extent. Connected Civil
Application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of
accordingly.
28. The Registry shall transmit the record and
proceedings, if any, to the concerned Court/Tribunal.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 25 of 25
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:23:31 IST 2026