MAHADEV SAMTABHAI PRAJAPATI vs AYESHABEN IBRAHIMBHAI MANASIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 503 of 2016
==========================================================
MAHADEV SAMTABHAI PRAJAPATI
Versus
AYESHABEN IBRAHIMBHAI MANASIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JARJEESKHAN(7235) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR VIJAL P DESAI(5505) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – original
claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.241 of
1999.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 claimant was travelling as a labourer in Tempo
bearing registration No.GJ8-T-4765 on 6.9.1998. The driver was
driving the tempo at a very high and excessive speed so as to
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
endanger human life and dashed against a stationary tractor-
trolley from behind. As a result, the accident happened and the
claimant and others suffered serious injuries. Hence, MACP is
filed for claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakh.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not
properly calculating the amount of compensation. He has
submitted that amount of award is on lower side as the Tribunal
has not properly considered the various aspects; like pain, shock
and suffering, transportation, special diet, medical expenses etc.
3.1 He has submitted that the compensation is required
to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly
and this appeal may be allowed.
4. Per contra , learned advocate for respondent –
Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and
therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
5. Apt to note that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a
beneficial piece of Legislation. The concept of just and fair
compensation is integral and seminal to the MV Act. The
compensation to be awarded under the principle of just and fair
compensation to the injured of the road accident or the legal
representative/s of the deceased person is based on the principle
of fairness, reasonableness and equability. Anguish of the heart
or for mental turbulence being consequential result of the road
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
accident cannot be actually compensated, but the quint
essentiality lies in adopting holistic and pragmatic view to the
computation of the compensation for the loss sustained, which is
to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Although exact or
perfect arithmetical calculation of compensation for reparation of
the loss arrived from the road accident is almost impossible. The
Tribunal is bestowed with duty to make an endevour to award
just compensation regardless of the amount claimed by the
claimant. The determination of the quantum of compensation
therefore, must be liberal and not niggardly since the law values
life and limb in a free country in generous scale. Needless to
state that money may be awarded, so that something tangible
may be procured to reach something else of the like nature,
which has been destroyed or lost, but money cannot renew
physical frame that has been battered and shattered being a
result of the road accident. Yet Tribunal to endavour to bring
back victim to stage of pre-road accident as far as possible
Thus, the award must be reasonable and cannot be assessed
with moderation though it cannot at the same time be pity and
what could be granted must be just, fair and equitable
compensation.
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
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
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:-
“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
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
(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 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
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
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.
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 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.
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
*
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 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) “
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
6.3 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.
6.4 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.
6.5 Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income (100% disability) 5,14,080/-
Pain, shock and suffering 2,50,000/-
Medical expenses 50,000/-
Special diet, attendant charges,
3,00,000/-
transportation & prosthetic leg
Loss of amenities 1,00,000/-
Total… 12,14,080/-
Less : Amount which is already awarded 2,10,876/-
Additional amount which is awarded 10,03,204/-
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
7. Therefore, I hold that the claimant are entitled to get
the enhanced compensation of Rs.10,03,204/- with 7.5% 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.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
8.1 The present appeal is partly allowed .
8.2 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount Rs.10,03,204/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from
the date of claim petition till its realization before the concerned
Tribunal, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
8.3 It is clarified that amount of compensation of Rs.3
lakh granted under the head of special diet, attendant charges,
transportation & prosthetic leg does not carry any interest.
8.4 The liability to pay 50% amount each for respondent Nos.1
and 2 on one hand and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the other
hand is maintained.
8.5 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded
amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026
C/FA/503/2016 (GJHC240420202016) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee
cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after
following due procedure.
8.6 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct
the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
8.7 Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:53:15 IST 2026