ISHVAR YUVRAJ THAKOR vs PRAVINSINH SAMATSINH SODHA PARMAR

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1796 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
ISHVAR YUVRAJ THAKOR
Versus
PRAVINSINH SAMATSINH SODHA PARMAR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 05/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant – original claimant under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
30.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary), Kheda at Nadiad, in MACP No.428 of
2012, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the
claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of application till its realisation, only in favour of the
claimant, recoverable from opponent Nos.1 to 3. Being
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present
appeal has been preferred.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1 The accident took place on 22.01.2012 at about 7
a.m. in the morning. At the relevant time, the claimant
was serving as a Police Constable and was riding his
motorcycle. At that time, respondent No.1, was driving an
autorickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-07-VV-8373, in
an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against the motorcycle of the appellant. Due to
the accident, the appellant sustained serious fracture
injuries on his right leg and other parts of the body.
Therefore, the appellant preferred the Claim Petition
seeking compensation.
3. The learned Tribunal after considering the
submissions and evidence on record, awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied by the same, the present appeal has been
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
preferred by the appellant.
4.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the
appellant. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards future loss of income on the
ground that the income of the present appellant had
increased after the accident and, therefore, there was no
loss of income. The learned Tribunal, relying upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar , reported in IV (2010) 4 ACC
815 (SC) , and considering that the claimant was a
Government servant, held that he was not entitled to
compensation towards future loss of income or actual loss
of income. On this ground, the learned Tribunal awarded
only Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of application till its realisation, and
hence, the present appeal has been preferred.
4.2 Further, it is submitted that, at the time of the
accident, the claimant was a Government employee and
his monthly salary was Rs.14,757/-. The salary certificate
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
issued by the Police Inspector, L.C.B., Kheda at Nadiad,
was produced before the learned Tribunal. The
examination-in-chief of the claimant was also produced at
Exh.23. In his cross-examination, the claimant admitted
that, after the accident, there was no deduction in his
salary, his increments were not stopped, and he continued
to perform the same duties which he was performing
before the accident in the Police Department.
4.3 Learned advocate Mr.Modi further submitted that,
insofar as the disability is concerned, the disability
certificate was produced before the learned Tribunal at
Exh.28. Considering the injuries sustained by the
claimant, namely, an injury to the right knee and fracture
of the upper end of the tibia with avulsion of the posterior
cruciate ligament on the right side, as per the opinion of
the doctor of Samir Hospital permanent physical
impairment in relation to the right lower limb at 28%,
which could be considered as 14% disability qua the
whole body.
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
4.4 It was further submitted that the amount awarded
towards pain, shock and suffering is on the lower side and
requires enhancement. The claimant is also entitled to
compensation towards special diet, attendant charges
and loss of amenities. Further, actual loss of income for
three months is also required to be awarded.
4.5 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Modi heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer v. Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
reported in 2023 ACJ 1. He submitted that, in the said
judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered
functional disability for determining the loss of future
prospective income, even though there was no reduction
in the income of the victim of the accident. It was
submitted that, for the purpose of determining future loss
of income, the fact that the income of the victim has not
been reduced or has subsequently increased.
4.6 Learned advocate Mr.Modi also relied upon the
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
judgments of the coordinate Benches of this Court in First
Appeal No.1649 of 2015, in the case of
Dharmendarasinh Chandarasinh Jadeja Vs.
Dharmendarasinh Mohansinh Devdhara & Anr. ,
dated 18.03.2026; First Appeal No.2041 of 2022, dated
20.02.2026, in the case of Manharbhai Somabhai Patel
Vs. Kalpeshkumar Mulajibhai Darji & Anr. ; First
Appeal No.541 of 2024, dated 26.02.2026, in the case of
Udesinh Chattrasinh Rathva Vs. Dilipkumar
Prithvisinh Bihola & Anr. ; First Appeal No.3887 of
2025, dated 21.08.2026, in the case of Dineshbhai
Harmanbhai Parmar Vs. Nirav Vikrambhai Patel &
Anr. ; and First Appeal No.1977 of 2019, dated
27.03.2026, in the case of Vinubhai Dayabhai
Pansuriya Vs. Rohitbhai Samjibhai Vacchani & Anr. ,
It was submitted that, in the aforesaid cases, even though
the claimant was a Government servant and there was no
reduction in the salary after the accident, relying upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd.
Sabeer (supra) , granted compensation towards future
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
loss of income. Considering the aforesaid submissions, it
was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the
impugned judgment and award passed by the learned
Tribunal be modified accordingly.
7.1 On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Dimple
Thaker for the respondent-insurance company
vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Sabeer
(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
It was submitted that, in the said case, the claimant was a
scrap dealer and was self-employed, and there was an
amputation of his leg. Considering those factual aspects,
the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded compensation towards
future loss of earnings.
7.2 Further, learned advocate Ms. Thaker submitted
that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rajkumar (supra) is concerned, still holds good law. As
per the said judgment, where a Government employee
continues in service without any reduction in salary or
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
loss of cadre or promotional prospects, compensation
under the head of future loss of earnings is not required
to be awarded. In support of her submissions, learned
advocate Ms.Thaker relied upon the judgment of the
coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.4506 of
2024, in the case of Chetanbhai Pravinchandra
Hadiyal Vs. Insafkhan Adrimkhan Sandhi & Ors. ,
dated 16.04.2025. It was, therefore, submitted that the
learned Tribunal has not committed any error in denying
compensation towards future loss of income and that the
present appeal is devoid of merit and requires to be
dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties, it
appears that the factum of the accident, involvement of
the vehicles, issue of negligence and liability are not in
dispute in the present appeal. The present appeal has
been preferred only on the ground of not awarding
compensation on future loss of income.
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
9. The core question is whether the present appellant
is entitled to future loss of income, despite the fact that
the claimant is a salaried employee and his salary has not
been reduced after the date of the accident but, on the
contrary, has increased. Considering the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer
(supra) , more particularly paragraphs 17 and 18, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“17. The High Court has not applied the
quantum for future prospects in the
compensation granted. In its reasoning, the
High Court has stated that the income tax
returns relied upon by the appellant show that
despite the injury the appellant's income had
subsequently increased and hence it cannot be
said that there is a loss of future earnings.
18. It is a well settled position of law that in
cases of permanent dis-ablement caused by a
motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not
only future loss of income, but also future
prospects. It has been reiterated by this court
in multiple instances that 'just compensation'
must be interpreted in such a manner as to
place the claimant in the same position as he
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
was before the accident took place.”
10. Considering the aforesaid pronouncement of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the coordinate Benches of this Court
have also awarded compensation towards future loss of
earnings to salaried persons and Government employees
by relying upon the judgment in Mohd. Sabeer (supra).
11. Further, learned advocate for the appellant, relying
upon the judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the cases of Dharmendarasinh Chandarasinh
Jadeja (supra) , Manharbhai Somabhai Patel (supra),
Udesinh Chattrasinh Rathva (supra), Dineshbhai
Harmanbhai Parmar (supra) and Vinubhai Dayabhai
Pansuriya (supra), submitted that, in all these
judgments, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, relying
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has
granted compensation towards future loss of income,
despite the fact that the claimants were salaried
employees whose salaries had not been reduced but, on
the contrary, had increased. So far as the judgment relied
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
upon by learned advocate for the insurance company in
the case of Chetanbhai Pravinchandra Hadiyal
(supra) is concerned, upon perusal of the same, it is
noticed that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Mohd. Sabeer (supra) was not brought to
the notice of the Coordinate Bench. Therefore, relying
upon the judgment in the case of Rajkumar (supra) , the
Coordinate Bench did not grant compensation towards
future loss of income where there was no reduction in
salary. However, in the present case, considering the
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Mohd. Sabeer (supra) , more particularly paragraphs 17
and 18 thereof, the claim for future loss of income is
required to be considered.
12. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the
claimant was serving as a Police Constable and that the
accident took place on 22.01.2012. The core controversy,
insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
relates to the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
in deviating from the standard formula which otherwise
considered for determining compensation under the head
of future loss of income in motor accident cases.
13. In the present case, the claimant, who was serving
as a Police Constable, was proceeding on his motorcycle
on 22.01.2012 at about 7:00 a.m. At that time, one
rickshaw bearing registration No . GJ-7-VV-8373, driven
by opponent No.1 at an excessive speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the claimant’s
motorcycle. As a result, the accident occurred, and the
claimant sustained fracture injuries. He was required to
undergo treatment as an indoor as well as an outdoor
patient and incurred medical and other expenses. Hence,
he claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the
opponents.
14. In the present case, the complaint lodged by the
claimant himself has been produced at Exh.26, and a copy
of the panchnama has been produced at Exh.27. A copy of
the RC Book of the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-07-
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
VV-8373 has been produced at Mark 7/3, and the
insurance policy of the said vehicle has been produced at
Mark 7/4. The disability certificate has been produced at
Exh.28, and the salary slip has been produced at Exh.29.
The salary slip for January 2012 indicates that the
claimant’s gross pay was Rs.14,757/-. After deducting
professional tax of Rs.200/-, his monthly income comes to
Rs.14,557/-.
15. Further, vide Exh.30, a certificate has been issued by
the Police Inspector, LCB, Nadiad, stating that, due to the
accident, the claimant was on leave from 22.01.2012 to
18.04.2012. The insurance policy covers the period of the
accident, and the FIR and charge-sheet have been filed
against opponent No.1.
16. Further, the claimant’s examination-in-chief has
been recorded at Exh.23, and he has been thoroughly
cross-examined. The main contention arising from his
cross-examination is that he admitted that, after the
accident, there was no reduction in his salary. On the
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
contrary, his salary had increased, and neither his
increment was stopped nor was any deduction made in
his increment.
17. Thus, considering the above facts, the claimant’s
monthly income is taken at Rs.14,557/-, and his age at the
time of the accident was 35 years. Considering the
disability certificate produced at Exh.28, the disability of
28% qua the right lower limb can be considered as 14%
disability of the body as a whole. These facts are not in
dispute. 14. Further, considering that the age of the
claimant was 35 years at the time of the accident, the
applicable multiplier is 16, as held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, and reiterated in
paragraph 44 of the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra).
18. In view of the above discussion, the submission
advanced by learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker for the
insurance company that the present appellant is not
entitled to any compensation towards future loss of
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
earnings does not hold any ground. As per the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Sabeer (supra) , in a
case of permanent disablement caused by a motor
accident, the claimant is entitled to compensation
towards future loss of income. Further, future prospects
are also required to be considered, even if the claimant’s
income has subsequently increased. Therefore, on that
ground, the claim for future loss of income cannot be
denied.
19. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680 , and as the age of the claimant was 35 years and he
was a salaried employee, an addition of 50% towards
future prospects is required to be considered.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the claimant, i.e.,
Rs.14,557/-, with an addition of 50% towards future
prospects, comes to Rs.21,835.50/- (rounded off to
Rs.21,836/-). Considering the disability at the rate of 14%
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
qua the whole body, the monthly loss of income comes to
Rs.3,057.04/- (rounded off to Rs.3,057/-). Accordingly,
Rs.3,057/- × 12 comes to Rs.36,684/-. As the age of the
claimant was 35 years at the time of the accident, the
applicable multiplier is 16. Thus, the future loss of income
is calculated at Rs.5,86,944/- (Rs.3,057/- × 12 × 16).
20. As considered above, the learned Tribunal has failed
to award compensation to the present appellant under the
head of future loss of income. Further, the amount
awarded under the heads of special diet and other related
expenses has not been appropriately reconsidered, as is
evident from the impugned award. Considering the
overall material on record, this Court is inclined to accept
the case of the appellant and award an appropriate
amount under the heads of transportation and attendant
charges. However, as the appellant is a salaried employee
and has continued to receive his salary, he is not entitled
to any compensation towards actual loss of income.
21. Considering all the above aspects, the total
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
compensation payable to the claimant is reassessed as
under:
Heads of Compensation Reassessed by this Court
Future Loss of Income Rs.5,86,944
Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.20,000/-
Special Diet, Attendant Charges and
Rs.15,000/-
Transportation
Total Compensation Rs.6,21,944/-
Less: Compensation Already Awarded Rs.25,000/-
Enhanced Amount of Compensation Rs.5,96,944/-
22. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.5,96,944/- along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
23. For the reasons recorded above, the following order
is passed:
a. The present appeal is partly allowed.
b. The insurance company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of Rs.5,96,944/- along with interest at
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026

C/FA/1796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240394572013)
the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the
Claim Petition till realization, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of this order. The remaining
directions issued by the learned Tribunal shall remain
unchanged.
c. The learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire
awarded amount, including the amount lying in fixed
deposits and/or with the Tribunal, together with accrued
interest, if any, to the claimant by account-payee cheque
or through NEFT/RTGS, after proper verification and
following the prescribed procedure.
d. While making the payment, the learned Tribunal
shall deduct the court fees, if any, remaining unpaid in
accordance with the applicable rules.
e. The record and proceedings, if any, shall be sent
back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith, and the award
shall be drawn accordingly.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
STANCY GOMES
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Thu Nov 05 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 00:01:37 IST 2026