VIKRANT VIJAYSINH BARAD vs RANJITBHAI MERAMANBHAI BARAD

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1261 of 2026
==========================================================
VIKRANT VIJAYSINH BARAD
Versus
RANJITBHAI MERAMANBHAI BARAD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
APURVA K JANI(7057) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MANDEEP SINGH SALUJA(8791) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 19/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Apurva Jani for the
appellant – original claimant and learned advocate
Mr.Mandeep Singh Saluja for respondent No.3 – Insurance
Company. Though served, none appeared for respondent No.1.
2. Admit. Learned advocate Mr.Saluja waives service
of notice of admission for and on behalf of respondent –
Insurance Company.
3. By way of the present appeal under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has challenged
the judgment and order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and
Additional District Judge, Gir-Somnath, in MACP No. 136 of
2018 (Old No. 931 of 2012), whereby the learned Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs. 22,75,200/-, with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
petition till realization, holding the opponents jointly and
severally liable to pay the said amount.
4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 13.08.2011,
at about 9:00 a.m., the claimant was travelling as a pillion
rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-11-P-5537.
When the motorcycle reached near Sardar Nagar Society in
Kodinar, two cows suddenly came onto the road and collided
with the motorcycle, as a result of which, the claimant
sustained serious injuries. He was thereafter taken to R.N.
Vala Hospital, Kodinar, where he was provided primary
treatment and was subsequently referred to Wockhardt
Hospital, Rajkot, for further treatment.
4.1 The claimant sustained spinal injuries resulting in
permanent disability. He also incurred substantial expenses
towards medical treatment and medicines.
4.2 The claimant further contended that, prior to the
accident, he was 18-year-old, hale and hearty young man
pursuing engineering studies. Relying upon the Second
Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, he claimed that his
income should be assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per month.
However, owing to the disability sustained in the accident, his
earning capacity was adversely affected.
4.3 In view of the aforesaid pleadings, claimant filed
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
seeking compensation along with interest and costs from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization, jointly and
severally from the opponents.
4.4 Upon appreciating the evidence on record, the
learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded compensation on the aforesaid terms.
4.5 Being aggrieved, appellant – claimant has
preferred the present appeal.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Jani appearing for the
appellant–original claimant, while not disputing the findings of
the learned Tribunal on all other issues, including the grant of
compensation under the conventional heads, has raised a
solitary contention that the learned Tribunal failed to
adequately consider the injuries sustained by the claimant and
their impact on his future life and earning capacity.
5.1 He further submitted that the road accident, which
has left the claimant paraplegic, has rendered him incapable
of moving his body below the neck and reduced him to a
completely dependent state. Despite the severity of the
injuries and their devastating consequences, the learned
Tribunal failed to assess his permanent physical disability and
functional disability at 100%. He also submitted that, prior to
the accident, the claimant was an 18-year-old boy pursuing
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
engineering studies, but the injuries sustained in the accident
have completely altered the course of his life.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Jani submitted that, instead
of considering the claimant’s educational background and
future earning potential, the learned Tribunal proceeded to
determine just, fair and reasonable compensation by taking
Rs. 3,000/- as the minimum monthly income for the purpose of
calculating the loss of future income.
5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Jani has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena
Pawaia and Others v. Ashraf Ali and Others , (2021) 17
SCC 148, and submitted that, in similar circumstances, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court considered Rs.10,000/- per month as
the income of the deceased/claimant, who was a college-going
student pursuing engineering studies. He, therefore,
submitted that the income of the claimant in the present case
should also be assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per month, in view of
the principle adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Saluja for respondent –
Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and
order.
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
7. I have heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and perused the impugned judgment and order. The
evidence on record clearly establishes that the claimant was
only 18 years of age at the time of the accident and was
pursuing engineering studies. The injuries sustained by him in
the accident resulted in quadriplegia, leaving him unable to
move his body below the neck and rendering him completely
dependent on others for his daily activities. Recently the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while debilitating the functional
disability of the appellants into 100% disability in case of
Sunil Kumar (Totally Disable Rep. by Wife) V. Iffco Tokio
General Insurance Company Ltd. (2026)INSC 1145 observed
in paragraph Nos. 5.1.3 to 5.1.5 and 5.1.8 as under:
5.1.3 Therefore, even though the Medical Board certified the
medical disability to be 75.5%, the functional effect can be
said to be debilitating for the appellant to the extent of
100%. One who remains dependent on another and requires
an attendant throughout his life can be said to be suffering
from 100% functional disability. The appellant would not be
able to do his own work, much less engage in earning
activity for himself and his family, leading to total loss of
working capacity.
5.1.4 In Shankar Dutt vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Others7, this Court elaborated the concept of permanent
disability, highlighting the components thereof the prime of
which is loss of earning capacity. The claimant, who
becomes partially or completely disabled and lose forever
the capacity to earn, is a permanently disabled person, and
the amount of compensation on the said count has to be
determined in such context.
5.1.5 The Court drew the distinction between medical
disability and functional disability, ‘A conceptual distinction
has to be drawn between the medically certified disability
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
resulting out of physical injury or impairment on one hand,
and the long-term repercussions on the injured, on his or her
life and activities on the other hand. The functional disability
is one which is suffered and felt by the injured in his day-to-
day life or in his avocation, occupation, business or
profession.’
(Para 5.6.1)
5.1.5 (a) It was further observed, ‘The medical opinion may
have suggested that physical impairment on account of the
injury is to a particular extent, however its functional effect
may be greater. In fact, it could be reasonable to state that
the functional incapacity resulting out of a particular bodily
injury, which may be impairment or amputation, would be
higher and greater than what may be medically perceived.’
(Para 5.6.2)
5.1.5 (b) The Court next explained, ‘When it comes to
assessing the compensation in the context of the injury
suffered, what matters is the extent by which the functions
of an injured person suffers, and not what the doctor may
have judged in terms of medical standards. The functional
aspect of the disability arising out of injury has correlation
with the age of the injured, his occupation, engagement in
work or avocation, the adversarial effect on the earning
capacity of the injured, which would again depend upon the
nature of work or earning activity with which and in which
the injured is engaged and such other relevant
considerations.’
(Para 5.6.3)
5.1.8 Therefore, because of the injuries, the appellant
became permanently disabled and effectively stood deprived
of his earning capacity in open competitive market. The
distinction between medical disability and functional
disability, as highlighted from the decision in Shankar Dutt
(supra), applies for arriving at the functional disability in the
present case also. In Jithendran (supra), this Court
underlined the need to adopt a realistic approach for
arriving at the figure of permanent disability, which
principle would also equally apply.
7.1 The learned Tribunal taking up claimant functional
disablement at 100% computed the total compensation under
the following heads:
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
Description Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 9,07,200/-
Actual Medical Expenses 2,20,000/-
Pain, shock and suffering 2,00,000/-
Attendants charges 6,48,000/-
Marriage Prospects 2,00,000/-
Transportation and Special diet 1,00,000/-
Total compensation 22,75,200/-
8. On perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it
appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and
reasonable compensation under the conventional heads.
However, the assessment of compensation towards loss of
future income and future prospects requires reconsideration.
9. In case of Meena Pawaia (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in paragraphs 8 and 9, has held as under:
8 . At the outset, it is required to be noted that deceased at
the time of accident was aged 2122 years and that he was a 3
rd year student in civil engineering. Therefore, it can be said
that looking to his educational qualification he was having a
bright future. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of
deceased at Rs.15,000/ per month for the purpose of
awarding compensation under the head of future economic
loss. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court has reduced the compensation and determined
the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/ per month. Awarding
the future economic loss to the claimants considering the
income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/ is not sustainable at all.
Even the labourers/skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
per month under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012.
As the deceased was studying in the 3 rd/4th semester of civil
engineering, he cannot be considered worse than the
labourers/skilled labourers. Even the counsel appearing on
behalf of the Union of India has fairly conceded that
assessing the income of deceased at Rs.5,000/ per month for
the purpose of awarding the compensation under the head of
future economic loss can be said to be at lower side and as
such is not justifiable. While awarding the future economical
loss, when the deceased died at the young age 2122 years
and was not earning at the time of death/accident, as per
catena of decisions of this court, the income for the purpose
of determining the future economic loss is always done on the
basis of guesswork considering many circumstances namely
the educational qualification and background of the family,
etc. Therefore looking to the educational qualification and the
family background and as observed herein above, the
deceased was having a bright future studying in the 3rd year
of civil engineering, we are of the opinion that the income of
the deceased at least ought to have been considered at least
Rs.10,000/ per month, more particularly considering the fact
that the labourers/skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/
per month even under the Minimum Wages Act in the year
2012.
9. The next question which is posed for the consideration
before this court is whether anything further is required to be
added towards the future rise in income? It is submitted that
on behalf of the Union of India that as the deceased was not
serving and earning at the time of accident/death nothing
further is to be added towards the future prospect/future rise
in income. The aforesaid cannot be accepted.
10. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the
present case, I find it appropriate to assess the claimant’s
monthly income at Rs.10,000/-, having regard to his age,
educational background and the fact that he was pursuing
engineering studies at the time of the accident. The claimant
was aged about 18 years at the time of the accident. The
propositions laid down in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethy & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 ,
40 % rise in income to be considered and multiplier 18 be
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
considered. The compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal under the other heads is maintained.
11. Therefore, compensation to be awarded to the
claimant is reworked as under:
Heads Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income
3,024,000/-
Monthly income =Rs. 10,000/-
Prospective income
(Rs.10,000 + 40%)=
Rs. 14,000/-
Disability 100%
Total Income = Rs.
(Rs.14000x12x18)= 3,024,000/-
Actual Medical Expenses 2,20,000/-
Pain, shock and suffering 2,00,000/-
Attendants charges 6,48,000/-
Marriage Prospects 2,00,000/-
Transportation and Special diet 1,00,000/-
Total compensation 43,92,000/-
Less awarded amount of
compensation by Tribunal
22,75,200/-
21,16,800/-
Enhanced amount
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026

C/FA/1261/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240124702025)
12 In light of the aforesaid discussions following order
is passed:
12.1 The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and order is modified to the aforesaid extent.
12.2 The claimant is entitled to additional amount of
compensation of Rs.21,16,800/ under the head of future loss
of income.
12.3 The enhanced amount to be paid by the opponents
with interest awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12.4 The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal
under the other heads is maintained and directions issued by
the learned Tribunal is also maintained.
13. R&P, if any, be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal. Connected Civil Application, if any, stands disposed
of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 16:41:19 IST 2026