AMARNATH DHARMCHANDRA SHARMA vs YUNUSBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI BHATTI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2423 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AMARNATH DHARMCHANDRA SHARMA
Versus
YUNUSBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI BHATTI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 14/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 08.08.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara in MACP No.424/2001, whereby the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,25,974/- after deducting 10% on
account of self negligence of the claimant/appellant along with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on
27.02.2001, the claimant-Amarnath Dharmchandra Sharma was
proceeding from Ahmedabad to Bangalore by driving the truck bearing
registration no.M.H.04-H-4582. When he was changing the tyre of the
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
truck near Karjan Railway Fatak on side of the road, in the meantime,
the respondent no.1 herein came by driving a luxury bus bearing
registration no.D.N.09-A-9145 at an excessive speed, in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed with the said truck from the behind. Due
to the impact of the said accident, the claimant fell down and the wheel
of the said luxury bus was rolled over the leg of the claimant and
resultantly, he sustained grievous injuries, including fracture injuries.
3. On being served, the respondent no.3/insurance company filed its
written statement at Exh.16, thereby denying all the averments made in
the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective
parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.4,73,304/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the original claimant/appellant herein challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. Mr. Adnan A. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.
Mohsin M. Hakim, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant herein
vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was
working as a driver and owing to the injuries sustained in the accident,
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
the right leg of the claimant/appellant has been amputated. He further
submitted that in absence of any cogent evidence of income on record,
the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant/appellant
as Rs.2,100/- per month. He submitted that in similar facts and
circumstances, the monthly income of the driver came to be assessed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court as Rs.6,000/- per month in case of Minu
Rout & Anr. Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors., reported in
2013 (10) SCC 695. He further submitted that in absence of any cogent
evidence of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the
income of the claimant/appellant as Rs.6,000/- per month. He further
submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant/appellant was aged
about 47 years, therefore, 25% of the monthly income ought to have
been added on account of future prospects of the claimant/appellant in
view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017
(16) SCC 680 and Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in 2022 INSC 1202.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the right
leg of the claimant/appellant has been amputated and the doctor has
issued the disability certificate, thereby certified that the
claimant/appellant has sustained the disability of 80% of body as a
whole, but considering the avocation of the claimant/appellant at the
time of accident, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the
functional disability at 100% as he has become totally disabled to drive
the truck.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation under
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
the heads of pain, shock and suffering, attendant charges,
transportation and special diet and loss of amenities of life. Therefore,
he prayed for enhancement of compensation under these heads.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2023)
20 SCC 774.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that though
the right leg of the claimant/appellant has been amputated, the learned
Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head
of cost of artificial limb and its maintenance. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the appellant placed the reliance upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir
Hussain (supra). Having placed the reliance upon the aforesaid
judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the
compensation under the head of cost of artificial limb is required to be
awarded.
11. Per contra, Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company vehemently submitted
that the income of the claimant/appellant was not proved on record by
leading the cogent evidence, therefore, in absence of any cogent
evidence of income, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of the claimant/appellant as Rs.2,100/- per month. She further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation
under all the heads of compensation. So far as the artificial limb is
concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3
submitted that there is no evidence on record that the
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
claimant/appellant is using the artificial limb or he has incurred any cost
for purchasing the artificial limb. Therefore, the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant to award the compensation under the
head of cost of artificial limb is not sustainable. She submitted that there
is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, hence, the
captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the
parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
claimant/appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and award
on the ground of quantum.
13. So far as the quantum is concerned, at the time of accident, the
claimant/appellant was working as a driver of the truck and he was
holding the valid driving license. It has been pleaded that at the time of
accident, the claimant/appellant was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as a
salary and Rs.200/- per day as a daily allowance. Therefore, the total
income of the claimant/appellant was Rs.10,000/- per month. It emerges
from the record that the income was not proved by leading the cogent
evidence on record, but it is not in dispute that at the time of accident,
the claimant was working as a truck driver and he was having the valid
driving license to drive the heavy vehicles. In the similar facts and
circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Minu Rout (supra),
assessed the income of the driver as Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus,
considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Minu Rout (supra), the income of the claimant/appellant is reassessed
at Rs.6,000/- per month.
14. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
claimant/appellant was aged about 47 years, therefore, 25% of the
monthly income is to be added on account of future prospects of the
claimant/appellant in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sidram (supra). Thus, after
adding 25% to the monthly income, it would come to Rs.7,500/- i.e.
(6,000+6,000X25%). Owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, the
claimant/appellant has lost his right leg. The learned Tribunal has
assessed the functional disability at 80%. It is not in dispute that at the
time of accident, the claimant/appellant was working as a driver.
Therefore, after the accident, he cannot continue with the same
avocation. In case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in
2011 (1) SCC 343, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 8, has observed as
under:-
“8 Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries,
the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings,
would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on
his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the
percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or
loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic
loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a
permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent
disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular
extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding
loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show
45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future
earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of
loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability
will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What
requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently
disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to
be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by
applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation
of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss
of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately
the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of
course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar
Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. – 2010(10) SCALE 298 and
Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. – 2010 (8) SCALE
567).”
15. Thus, considering the nature of avocation of the
claimant/appellant at the time of accident and having regard to the
nature of injuries sustained by the claimant/appellant, in my considered
view, the learned Tribunal has committed gross error in not considering
the functional disability at 100%. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Raj Kumar (supra), the
functional disability of the claimant/appellant is reassessed at 100%. It
is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the claimant/appellant was
aged about 47 years, therefore, applying the multiplier of 13, the future
loss of income would come to Rs.11,70,000/- i.e.
(7,500X100%X12X13).
16. The learned Tribunal has awarded the actual loss of income for a
period of 6 months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant/appellant, the compensation awarded under this head requires
no interference and accordingly, the same is maintained.
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
17. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the
head of medical expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The learned
Tribunal has awarded the said amount of compensation on the basis of
actual bills produced by the claimant/appellant on record at Exhs.40, 42,
44, 45 and 48. Therefore, the compensation awarded under this head
requires no interference and accordingly, the same is maintained.
18. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under
the head of special diet, transportation and attendant charges. It is
evident from the record that the claimant/appellant has sustained the
grievous fracture injuries on both legs and the elbow and owing to the
injuries sustained by the claimant/appellant in the vehicular accident, his
right leg was amputated. Further, it emerges from the records that the
claimant/appellant remained hospitalized for a considerable period and
thereafter he received the medical treatment as an outdoor patient.
Therefore, considering the period of treatment and the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant/appellant, the compensation awarded under
this head is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.35,000/-.
19. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under
the head of pain, shock and suffering. It emerges from the record that
the claimant/appellant has sustained multiple fractures injuries.
Resultantly, his right leg was amputated. He underwent multiple
surgeries and he remained hospitalized for a quite long period.
Therefore, the compensation awarded under this head is required to be
enhanced. In case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court, in similar facts and circumstances, awarded the
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of pain, shock and
suffering. Thus, considering the ratio of the judgment laid down by the
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (supra),
the compensation awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering
is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.
20. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under
the head of loss of amenities of life. Owing to the injuries sustained in
the accident, the claimant/appellant has lost his right leg. He has been
deprived of performing his daily chores and leading a normal life.
Therefore, the compensation awarded under this head is required to be
enhanced. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under this head is
enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.
21. Though the right leg of the claimant was amputated, the learned
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards cost of artificial
limb. It has been argued on behalf of learned counsel for the
respondent no.3/insurance company that the claimant/appellant has not
pleaded that he has incurred any expenses in purchasing the artificial
limb. Therefore, the claimant/appellant is not entitled to get the
compensation under the head of cost of artificial limb. This court cannot
shut its eyes to the ground realities that the right leg of the
claimant/appellant has been amputated, therefore, he either requires an
artificial limb or a full-time attendant to assist him in performing his daily
routine activities. In case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.,
reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para
16, has observed as under:-
“16. ………..It is the duty of the Tribunal to build on that report and
award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation with
reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. Thus,
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
on that ground also we hold that the Tribunal/court has a duty,
irrespective of the claims made in the application, if any, to properly
award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if
necessary, ignoring the claim made in the application for
compensation.”
22. Thus, considering the ground realities, I am not convinced with
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the insurance
company. Hence, the said contention is rejected. In view of the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir
Hussain (supra), a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded under the head of
cost of artificial limb and its maintenance and future medical expenses.
23. In view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant shall be
entitled for the following amount of compensation under the following
heads:-
Sr. No. Particular Amount
1. Future loss of income 11,70,000/-
2. Actual loss of income 12,600/-
3. Medical expenses 50,000/-
4. Pain, shock and suffering 2,00,000/-
5. Special diet, attendant charges and
transportation
35,000/-
6. Loss of amenities of life 2,00,000/-
7. Cost of artificial limb and its maintenance
and future medical expenses
5,00,000/-
Total 21,67,600/-
Less: deduction of 10% on account of
self negligence of the claimant/appellant
2,16,760/-
Net compensation 19,50,840/-
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026
C/FA/2423/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
24. The learned Tribunal has already awarded the compensation to
the tune of Rs.4,25,974/-, therefore, the appellant/claimant shall be
entitled for additional compensation of Rs.15,24,866/- i.e. (19,50,840-
4,25,974). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of
9% per annum, therefore, the original claimant/appellant shall be
entitled for the same rate of interest on additional amount of
compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
25. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands
allowed partly. The impugned judgment and award is to be modified to
the aforesaid extent. The respondent no.3/insurance company shall
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest within
a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
26. Upon depositing of the said amount of compensation, the learned
Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation along with
interest to the original claimant/appellant herein after deducting deficit of
Court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any, lying
deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted
to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
27. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 21:08:11 IST 2026