AJITBHAI @ NARTAMBHAI KACHHIYABHAI CHAUDHARI vs CHAMPAKBHAI MAGHABHAI CHAUDHARI (DECD)

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3595 of 2025
==========================================================
AJITBHAI @ NARTAMBHAI KACHHIYABHAI CHAUDHARI
Versus
CHAMPAKBHAI MAGHABHAI CHAUDHARI (DECD) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 19/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant/s being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
31.1.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Vyara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.363 of 2012,
whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation of
Rs.4,74,900/- with 8% interest p.a. from the date of petition
till realization.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The claimant was used to work as a labourer in the
tractor and trailor of opponent no.2. That on 16.12.2011 16:00
at o'clock, claimant alongwith other labour person went to cut
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
the bamboo tree of Narsinhbhai Bhilabhai Chaudhari at
Sejvadi Vagti and by cutting the bamboo tree and same loaded
on the traitor no. GJ-05-X-854 which was annexed in tractor
no. GJ-05-AA-3327 of was going for the purpose of opponent
no.2, deloading the bamboo by sitting over the loaded trolly
from Vans Gambla to Degama. The said tractor was being
driven by opponent no.1 and when the said vehicle was facing
at the Vedchhe village, at that time, suddenly annexure hook
of the trailor was broken, in this way, opponent no.1 lost the
control over the tractor, and the trolly by separating from
tractor, then turn turtle then fallen on the ditch, thereby
injured fallen and pressed under the tractor, resultantly
injured claimant sustained grievous injuries on Left foot, knee
and other multiple injuries and Falso sustained fracture on the
hand, then shifted to Sardar Hospital, Bardoli then on
17/12/2011 shifted to Gayatri Hospital Vyara, and during the
treatment, amputated the foot below lower knee. And in said
accident, opponent No.1 Champakbhai had also died.
2.2 The Claimant thereafter filed a claim petition before the
learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10
lakh.
2.3 The opponents on being served appeared through
learned advocate and filed written statement denying the
averments and allegations made in the claim petition.
2.4 The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
considering the evidence on record, was pleased to pass the
impugned judgment and award.
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
2.5 Hence, present First Appeal.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Modi for the appellant – claimant
would submit that the Claimant was a labourer and foot
below-knee amputation renders the Claimant completely unfit
to perform his duties as a labourer forever. He would further
submit that the functional disability ought to have been
treated as 100% loss of earning capacity, rather than a mere
60%. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal
erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of future
prospective income. He would further submit that the learned
Tribunal awarded nominal sums under non-pecuniary heads.
The Claimant is entitled to reasonable enhancement for Pain,
Shock & Suffering, Loss of Amenities, Special Diet,
Transportation, Attendant Charges, and the cost of an
Artificial / Prosthetic Leg. Hence, he prays to allow the First
Appeal and to modify the judgment and award suitably.
5. Learned advocates Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati supports the
impugned judgment and award, and submit that the learned
tribunal has rightly assessed the evidence on record, and
therefore no interference is required.
6. To substantiate the claim, the Claimant stepped into the
witness box at Exhibit 53. The medical evidence on record,
including medico legal certificate at Exh.59 (Mark 55/4)
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
issued by Shree Sardar Smarak Hospital, Surat, wherein,
following injuries sustained by the claimant is mentioned:-
“Local Examination: Tenderness / Pain / abnormal
mobility Left Humerus Tenderness / Pain / Swelling
Left Wrist. Tenderness / Pain / Swelling Left Knee &
Left Leg..
X-Ray film shows :- Left Leg with Ankle - Fracture
Left Tibia M/3 Left Humerus with Elbow - Fracture
L/3 Left Shaft Humerus. Left F.A. with Wrist -
Fracture L/3 Left radius CXR - PA - NAD / Keft Knee –
NAD
Treatment given :- A/K. Slab Left --- A/E. Slab Left Inj.
T.T. / Voveran / Antibiotic/ Analgesic/ Antacid/ Inj.
Antiemetic / I.V.Fluid.
Patient left against medical advise on 17-12-2011 at
1-30 P.M.”
6.1 Although the defense cross-examined the witness to
suggest that an amputation does not completely extinguish
the Claimant's ability to engage in alternative light work, this
Court cannot turn a blind eye to the reality of manual
vocations. A heavy vehicle cleaner or second driver cannot
perform his primary vocation without a functional leg.
7. It is a settled position of law that "functional disability"
must be evaluated with reference to the specific nature of the
work performed by the victim prior to the accident. Where an
injury renders a workman completely incapable of performing
the sole work he was trained for, the loss of earning capacity
must be treated as 100%, even if the physical impairment
value in the medical schedule is lower. Considering that the
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
Claimant was working as a cleaner / second driver, the loss of
his foot below the knee permanently debars him from driving
heavy goods vehicles or assisting in heavy manual
loading/unloading tasks. Following established precedents,
this Court holds that the functional disability for calculating
loss of future earning capacity must be assessed at 100%.
8. This Court in case of Mahadevbhai Samtabhai
Prajapati Vs. Ayeshaben Ibrahimbhai Manasiya and
others, rendered in First Appeal No.503 of 2016 came
across with identical issue, wherein this Court assessed 100%
disability of the claimant where his right leg was amputated.
The relevant observation in para 6.1 and 6.2 reads as under:-
“6.1 I have considered the submissions made
by the rival parties. I have perused the record and
proceedings of the Tribunal. I have gone through
the impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned Tribunal. From the record, it transpires
that the claimant was working as labourer and
amputation of his left leg reduced his capacity of
working completely. The work of a labourer 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. Therefore, it is a case of 100%
injury.
6.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in recent judgment in
case of M.Paramesh Versus Vrl Logistics Ltd.,
2026 INSC 655 , held that issue of granting loss of
future prospect is also integral part of granting just
and fair compensation. Para 21 is relevant, which
reads as under:-
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
“21. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and
Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 this Court has
elaborately explained the distinction between
physical disability and functional disability
and has held that for the purposes of
determining compensation, the effect of the
permanent disability on the earning capacity
of the injured is the relevant consideration.
The relevant observations are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“10. 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, the 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.
11. What requires to be assessed by the
Tribunal is the effect of the permanent
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
disability on the earning capacity of the
injured; and after assessing the loss of
earning capacity in terms of a percentage
of the income, it has to be quantified in
terms 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 the 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 SCC 254 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale
298] and Yadava Kumar v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale
567 ]
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first
decide whether there is any permanent
disability and, if so, the extent of such
permanent disability. This means that the
Tribunal should consider and decide with
reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is
permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is
permanent, whether it is
permanent total disablement or
permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement
percentage is expressed with
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
reference to any specific limb,
then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the
functioning of the entire body,
that is, the permanent disability
suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that
there is no permanent disability
then there is no question of
proceeding further and
determining the loss of future
earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is
permanent disability then it will
proceed to ascertain its extent.
After the Tribunal ascertains
the actual extent of permanent
disability of the claimant based
on the medical evidence, it has
to determine whether such
permanent disability has
affected or will affect his
earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the
permanent disability on the actual
earning capacity involves three steps. The
Tribunal has to first ascertain what
activities the claimant could carry on in
spite of the permanent disability and
what he could not do as a result of the
permanent disability (this is also relevant
for awarding compensation under the
head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation,
profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third step is
to find out whether (i) the claimant is
totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant could
still effectively carry on the activities and
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
functions, which he was earlier carrying
on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or
restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry
on some other or lesser scale of activities
and functions so that he continues to earn
or can continue to earn his livelihood.
*
19. We may now summarise the
principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent
disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of
earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of
permanent disability with
reference to the whole body of a
person, cannot be assumed to
be the percentage of loss of
earning capacity. To put it
differently, the percentage of
loss of earning capacity is not
the same as the percentage of
permanent disability (except in
a few cases, where the Tribunal
on the basis of evidence,
concludes that the percentage
of loss of earning capacity is the
same as the percentage of
permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an
injured claimant or who
examined him subsequently to
assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give
evidence only in regard to the
extent of permanent disability.
The loss of earning capacity is
something that will have to be
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
assessed by the Tribunal with
reference to the evidence in
entirety.
(iv) The same permanent
disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning
capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of
profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other
factors.”
(emphasis supplied) “
9. Simultaneously, if we go through the impugned judgment
and award, the learned Tribunal granted compensation for
actual loss of income which cannot be granted in case of
100% disability or a person rendered deadwood on account of
accidental injury.
10. What further appears that the claimant has lost his left
leg and therefore, he is required to have prosthetic leg and
therefore, amount of compensation is also required to be
granted for prosthetic leg. Attendant charges and other
charges are also required to be enhanced simultaneously. In
line of the aforesaid, the entire amount of compensation is
required to be re-worked out.
11. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
Future loss of income (100% disability) 11,86,920/-
Pain, shock and suffering 2,00,000/-
Medical expenses 20,900/-
Special diet, attendant charges,
50,000/-
transportation & prosthetic leg
Loss of amenities 1,50,000/-
Artificial leg 2,00,000/-
Total… 18,07,820/-
Less : Amount which is already awarded 4,74,900/-
Additional amount which is awarded 13,32,920/-
12. Therefore, I hold that the claimant are entitled to
get the enhanced compensation of Rs.13,32,920/- with 9% p.a.
interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its
realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the
direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the following
order is passed.
13.1 The present appeal is partly allowed .
13.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount Rs.13,32,920/- with 9% p.a. interest from
the date of claim petition till its realization before the
concerned Tribunal, within a period of 08 weeks from the date
of receipt of this order.
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026

C/FA/3595/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240615842025)
13.3 The Respondents / Insurance Companies are held
jointly and severally liable to pay the entire awarded amount
to the Claimant.
13.4 The claimant is not entitled for interest on
enhanced amount of compensation for delayed period of 427
days.
13.5 Rest of the direction issued by the learned Tribunal
remained unchanged.
13.6 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded
amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with
accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account
payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and
after following due procedure.
13.7 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall
deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with
rules/law.
14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 16:41:45 IST 2026