PRATAPBHAI JESAJI BHIL vs GULAMBHAI ISMAILBHAI MANSURI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1395 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRATAPBHAI JESAJI BHIL
Versus
GULAMBHAI ISMAILBHAI MANSURI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS SHEETAL MISTRY for the Defendant(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 24/08/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned
th
MACT (Aux) & 6 Additional District Judge, Panchmahals at
Godhara in M.A.C.P. No. 953 of 2013, whereby the learned
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.7,85,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Eighty Five
Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per
Page 1 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization.
2. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the
captioned appeal are summarized as under :-
i. On 10.03.2013, at about 04:00 p.m., Pratapbhai
Jesaji Bhil and one Rakeshbhai were proceeding
as pedestrians along the side of the road. At that
time, they were knocked down by a Rickshaw
Chhakda bearing Registration No. GJ-17-Z-0360,
which was being driven by Opponent No. 1 in a
rash and negligent manner, at an excessive
speed. As a result of the said vehicular accident,
Pratapbhai Jesaji Bhil sustained grievous
injuries.
ii. The notices/summons of the Claim Petition were
duly served upon the opponents. The opponent
nos.1 & 2 have chosen not to appear before the
learned Tribunal, however, opponent no. 3
appeared and filed Written Statement vide
Exh.14, denying the contents of the claim
petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
iii.Having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, and having
considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.7,85,000/- (Rupees Seven
Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Only) along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
iv. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
impugned judgment and award, the claimant -
appellant herein preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Makbul Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for the
claimant-appellant herein vehemently submitted that at the
time of the accident, the claimant-appellant was working as a
labourer and was aged about 36 years. According to the
claimant-appellant, he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month.
However, the said income could not be established by leading
cogent evidence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed the
monthly income of the claimant-appellant at Rs.5,000/-, which
is on the lower side. It was submitted that, in the absence of
cogent evidence regarding the actual income, the learned Tri-
bunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the
claimant-appellant on the basis of the minimum wages preva-
lent at the time of the accident.
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
5. It is submitted that as the claimant-appellant was aged
36 years at the time of the accident, 40% of the income ought
to have been added towards future prospects. It was
submitted that owing to the injuries sustained in the accident,
the right leg of the claimant-appellant was amputated below
the knee. However, the learned Tribunal awarded a meagre
amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering.
6. It is submitted that, although the claimant-appellant
requires an artificial limb, the learned Tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards the cost of the artificial limb. It
was submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded meagre
amounts under the heads of actual loss of income, special diet,
attendant charges and transportation expenses as well as loss
of amenities of life.
7. It is submitted that since the right leg of the claimant-ap-
pellant was amputated below the knee, he has suffered 100%
disability insofar as his capacity to perform his work is
concerned. However, the learned Tribunal assessed the func-
tional disability of the claimant-appellant at only 50%.
According to the learned advocate, the case is one of 100%
functional disability. He, therefore, prayed enhancement of
compensation.
8. Ms. Sheetal Mistry, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent no.2 vehemently submitted that the
Page 4 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
vehicle was duly insured, and therefore, the Insurance
Company is liable to satisfy the award.
9. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3–Insurance Company
vehemently submitted that the income of the claimant -
appellant was not proved by leading cogent evidence, and
therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the
monthly income of the claimant-appellant at Rs.5,000/-. It is
submitted that, as per the Disability Certificate produced and
proved at Exh. 41, the claimant-appellant had sustained 50%
functional disability. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has
rightly assessed the functional disability of the claimant -
appellant at 50%.
10. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded
just and reasonable compensation under all the heads.
However, insofar as the claim towards loss of amenities of life
and the cost of an artificial/prosthetic limb is concerned, it
was submitted that appropriate and reasonable compensation
may be awarded under the said heads, as this Court may
deem fit and proper.
11. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel 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.
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
12. So far as the quantum is concerned, at the time of the
accident, the claimant-appellant was working as a labourer.
The income of the claimant-appellant could not be proved by
leading cogent evidence and, therefore, the learned Tribunal
assessed the monthly income of the claimant-appellant at
Rs.5,000/-. In my considered opinion, in the absence of cogent
evidence regarding the actual income of the claimant-
appellant, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the
minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident, which
occurred on 10.03.2013. At the relevant point of time, the
minimum wages prescribed for a skilled worker were
Rs.5,180/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the
claimant-appellant is reassessed at Rs.5,180/-, rounded off to
Rs.5,200/- per month. It is not in dispute that at the time of
accident, the claimant-appellant was aged about 36 years,
therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to added on account
of future prospects of the claimant-appellant. Thus, after
adding 40% of the monthly income, it would come to Rs.
7,280/- (Rs.5,200/- + Rs.2,080/- (40% of Rs.5,200/-).
13. It emerges from the record that the claimant-appellant
has received the grievous injuries in the vehicular accident
which took place on 10.03.2013. Resultantly, his right leg
below knee had been amputated. Doctor has certified that the
claimant-appellant has sustained the functional disability to
the extent of 50%. The learned Tribunal has translated the
physical disability to functional disability without any reason.
Page 6 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
There is vast difference between physical disability and
functional disability. In case of Raj Kumar And Another Vs.
Ajay Kumar And Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-
“8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of
ability to perform an activity in the manner
considered normal for a human-being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary
incapacity or loss of use of some part of the
body, found existing at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery
which is likely to remain for the remainder life
of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the
incapacity or loss of use of some part of the
body on account of the injury, which will cease
to exist at the end of the period of treatment and
recuperation. Permanent disability can be either
partial or total. Partial permanent disability
refers to a person's inability to perform all the
duties and bodily functions that he could
perform before the accident, though he is able
to perform some of them and is still able to
engage in some gainful activity. Total
permanent disability refers to a person's
inability to perform any avocation or
employment related activities as a result of the
accident. The permanent disabilities that may
arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a
Page 7 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
much wider range when compared to the
physical disabilities which are enumerated in
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for
short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated
in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the
result of injuries sustained in a motor accident,
they can be permanent disabilities for the
purpose of claiming compensation.
9. The percentage of permanent
disability is expressed by the Doctors with
reference to the whole body, or more often than
not, with reference to a particular limb. When a
disability certificate states that the injured has
suffered permanent disability to an extent of
45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as
45% permanent disability with reference to the
whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or
part of the body) expressed in terms of a
percentage of the total functions of that limb,
obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of
disability of the whole body. If there is 60%
permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean
that the extent of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body is 140% (that is
80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body
have suffered different percentages of
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in
terms of the permanent disability with reference
to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed
100%.
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, 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.
Page 9 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
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 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.
Page 10 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
14. For example, if the left hand of a
claimant is amputated, the permanent physical
or functional disablement may be assessed
around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a
carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity
may virtually be hundred percent, if he is
neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the
other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in
government service, the loss of his left hand
may not result in loss of employment and he
may still be continued as a clerk as he could
perform his clerical functions; and in that event
the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as
in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60%
which is the actual physical disability, but far
less. In fact, there may not be any need to award
any compensation under the head of `loss of
future earnings', if the claimant continues in
government service, though he may be awarded
compensation under the head of loss of
amenities as a consequence of losing his hand.
Sometimes the injured claimant may be
continued in service, but may not found suitable
for discharging the duties attached to the post
or job which he was earlier holding, on account
of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to
some other suitable but lesser post with lesser
emoluments, in which case there should be a
limited award under the head of loss of future
earning capacity, taking note of the reduced
Page 11 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
earning capacity.”
14. Now, adverting to the facts of the present case, it
emerges from the record that, at the time of the accident, the
claimant-appellant was working as a labourer. Owing to the
injuries sustained in the accident, his right leg below the knee
came to be amputated. In view of the amputation and the
resulting permanent disability, the claimant-appellant is no
longer in a position to perform the work of labour, which was
his occupation prior to the accident. Therefore, in my
considered opinion, it is the case of 100% functional disability.
Therefore, I reassessed the functional disability at 100%.
Therefore, considering the age of the claimant–appellant
herein and applying the multiplier of 15, the future loss of
income is required to be computed by taking the functional
disability at 100%. Thus, the compensation under the head of
future loss of income would come to Rs. 13,10,400/-
(Rs.7,280x100%x12x15).
15. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-
under the head of pain, shock and suffering. However,
considering the nature and severity of the injuries sustained
by the claimant-appellant, the amount so awarded appears to
be wholly inadequate. It emerges from the record that, in the
vehicular accident in question, the claimant-appellant
sustained severe injuries. Owing to the said injuries, his right
leg below the knee came to be amputated, resulting in
permanent disability. It further emerges from the record that
Page 12 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
the claimant-appellant underwent surgical intervention and
was required to remain hospitalized for a considerable period.
Even thereafter, he continued to undergo medical treatment
as an outdoor patient. The claimant-appellant was thus,
required to undergo prolonged medical treatment and suf-
fered considerable physical pain, mental agony and trauma on
account of the injuries sustained, the surgical procedures
undergone and the eventual amputation of his right lower
limb. Thus, considering the nature and gravity of the injuries,
the surgical intervention, the amputation of the right leg
below the knee and the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, the compensation awarded under the head of pain,
shock and suffering is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.1,25,000/-.
16. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-
towards the medical expenses. The compensation awarded
under this head is not under challenge. Therefore, the same
does not require any interference.
17. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-
towards actual loss of income for a period of six months. Since
the monthly income of the claimant-appellant has been
reassessed, the compensation under the said head is required
to be suitably enhanced. Accordingly, the compensation
awarded towards actual loss of income is enhanced from
Rs.30,000/- to Rs.31,200/- for a period of six months.
Page 13 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
18. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-
under the composite head of special diet, attendant charges
and transportation expenses. As discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, the claimant-appellant remained hospitalized for
a considerable period and underwent prolonged medical
treatment. During such period, he would have required spe-
cial diet and necessary assistance and care. Considering the
nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the
claimant-appellant, the period of hospitalization and the
prolonged treatment undergone by him, the compensation
under the aforesaid heads requires enhancement.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards special
diet and transportation expenses. Further, considering the
nature of the injuries and the extent of assistance required by
the claimant-appellant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded
towards attendant charges.
19. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities of life. It emerges from the
record that the right leg of the claimant-appellant was
amputated below the knee, as a result of which he is unable to
lead a normal life and has been deprived of various amenities
and pleasures of life. The amputation has substantially
affected his day-to-day activities and enjoyment of life.
Therefore, considering the nature and extent of the
permanent disability suffered by the claimant-appellant, the
compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities of
life is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,15,000/-.
Page 14 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
20. The right leg of the claimant-appellant below the knee
came to be amputated owing to the injuries sustained in the
vehicular accident. The learned Tribunal, however, has not
awarded any amount towards the cost of an artificial /
prosthetic limb or its maintenance. It is not in dispute that, at
the time of the accident, the claimant-appellant was aged
about 36 years. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prahlad Sahai v.
Haryana Roadways reported in 2026 ACJ 997, wherein, while
considering the life expectancy of 70 years, the Hon'ble Apex
Court proceeded on the basis that the useful life of a
prosthetic limb is approximately five years. Considering the
age of the claimant-appellant, the permanent disability suf-
fered by him, the amputation of the right lower limb below the
knee, the recurring requirement of prosthetic limbs and the
expenses likely to be incurred towards their maintenance and
replacement, a reasonable amount deserves to be awarded
under this head. Accordingly, a lump-sum amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded towards the cost of prosthetic
limb(s), including the expenses towards their maintenance
and replacement.
21. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the
claimant-appellant herein shall be entitled for the following
compensation:-
Page 15 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded in
rupees.
1 Future loss of income 13,10,400/-
2 Actual loss of income (+) 31,200/-
3 Pain, Shock and Suffering (+) 1,25,000/-
4 Attendant charges (+) 50,000/-
5 Special diet &
Transportation
(+) 25,000/-
6 Loss of Amenities (+) 1,50,000/-
7 Cost of Artificial Limb and
(+) 2,00,000/-
its Maintenance
8 Medical Expenses (+) 10,000/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 19,01,600/-
(Minus) Compensation
awarded by impugned
(-) Rs. 7,85,000/-
Judgment and Award
Enhanced amount of
Rs. 11,16,600/-
compensation
22. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the claimant -
appellant shall be entitled for an additional compensation of
Rs.11,16,600/- (Rs.19,01,600/- – Rs.7,85,000/-). The learned
Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
Therefore, the claimant – appellant herein shall also be
entitled for the same rate of interest on the additional amount
of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition
till its realization.
23. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal
stands allowed partly and judgment and award is modified to
that extent. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026
C/FA/1395/2026 (GJHC240031792026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/08/2026
additional compensation amount along with interest, with the
concerned learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon depositing the
said amount of compensation, learned Tribunal shall disburse
the entire awarded amount of compensation along with
interest to the claimant/s – appellant/s herein after due
verification and after deducting of deficit of Court fee, if any.
24. If any amount is lying deposited in the captioned appeal
with the Registry of this court, the same may be transmitted
to the concerned learned Tribunal. Records & Proceedings, if
any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal. No
order as to costs.
25. Pending application, if any stands disposed of.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:46:43 IST 2026