MUKESH BIPINCHANDRA VORA vs INDRASINGH LEHRUBHA JADEJA

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2249 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MUKESH BIPINCHANDRA VORA
Versus
INDRASINGH LEHRUBHA JADEJA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 16/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.3) at Bhuj-Kachchh in
M.A.C.P. No. 1 of 2004, whereby the learned Tribunal has
partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.99,700/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Seven Hundred
Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per 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 14.10.2003, Mukesh Bipinchandra Vora and
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
deceased Rajesh Dhirubhai Bayad were standing
on the kachcha road near the shop of Khodiyar
Electricals, opposite V.D. High School. In the
meantime, a Luxury Bus bearing Registration
No. GJ-20-T-9833 came from the side of Indrabai
Park and was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner, at an excessive speed and on
the wrong side of the road. The driver of the said
bus lost control over the vehicle and violently
dashed against Sureshbhai Kanjibhai
Maheshwari, deceased Rajesh Dhirubhai Bayad
and Mukesh Bipinchandra Vora. As a result of
the said vehicular accident, Mukesh
Bipinchandra Vora sustained grievous injuries,
whereas Rajesh Dhirubhai Bayad suffered fatal
injuries and succumbed to the same.
ii. The notices/summons of the Claim Petition were
duly served upon the opponents. The opponent
no.1 has chosen not to appear before the learned
Tribunal, however, the opponent no.2-Insurance
Company filed Written Statement vide Exh.16,
denying the contents of the claim petition and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
iii. Having considered the pleadings of the parties,
the learned Tribunal framed the following issues
for determination.
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
i. Whether the applicant proves that he
was injured by rash and/or negligent act
of the driver of the vehicle involved in
the accident while in course of
employment of the owner of the vehicle
involved?
ii. Whether the applicant is entitled to
compensation from the opponents or any
of them? If Yes, what amount and from
whom?
iii.What Award?
iv. 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.99,700/- (Rupees Ninety
Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Only) along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
impugned judgment and award, the claimants -
appellants herein preferred the present appeal.
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate appearing for the
claimant - appellant herein vehemently submitted that at the
time of accident, the claimant–appellant herein was aged
about 35 years and was serving as a Switch Board Operator
with the Gujarat Electricity Board (G.E.B.), earning Rs.6,000/-
per month. He submitted that while assessing the future loss
of income, the learned Tribunal erroneously reduced the
monthly income of the claimant to ¼ and failed to take into
consideration the future prospects of the claimant. It is
submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant–appellant
herein was aged about 35 years, therefore, 50% of the
monthly notional income ought to have been added on account
of future prospects of the claimant–appellant herein. In
support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Sidram Vs. The
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
& Anr. 2022 INSC 1202.
5. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not
awarding any amount towards medical expenses despite the
fact that the claimant–appellant had produced on record
medical bills of Rs.5,37,666.49/-. It is submitted that the said
bills were duly exhibited and formed part of the evidence on
record, establishing that the claimant – appellant herein had
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
incurred substantial expenditure towards medical treatment
on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. He,
therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered and allowed the medical bills placed on record and
awarded appropriate compensation under the head of medical
expenses.
6. Per contra, Mr.Tanmay Karia, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-Insurance Company
vehemently submitted that at the time of the accident, the
claimant–appellant herein was serving with the G.E.B. and
continued to remain in service even after the accident.
According to him, there was no actual reduction in the income
of the claimant on account of the injuries sustained in the
accident. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal
had rightly taken only ¼ of the monthly income of the
claimant for the purpose of computing the loss of future
earning capacity. So far as the claim under the head of
medical expenses is concerned, it is submitted that the
claimant–appellant had failed to produce the original medical
bills on record. It is submitted that though reliance was
placed upon a communication issued by GETCO regarding
sanction of reimbursement of medical expenses, the author of
the said document was not examined and the document was
not duly proved in accordance with law. He, therefore,
submitted that the learned Tribunal was justified in declining
to award any amount towards medical expenses and that no
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
interference is called for with the findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal in that regard.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the
record, i t is to be noted that the claimant/appellant herein
have challenged the impugned judgment and order on the
ground of quantum .
8. So far as quantum is concerned, it is not in dispute that,
at the time of the accident, the claimant – appellant herein
was working as Switch Board Operator in G.E.B. and his
monthly income was Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant –
appellant herein has proved the salary slip at Exhs.55 and 56.
After deducting the amount on account of professional tax, the
monthly salary would come to Rs.5,960/-. The learned
Tribunal ought to have taken the said monthly income for
calculating the future loss of income, however, the learned
Tribunal has reduced the monthly income to ¼ . In case of
Sarla Verma Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that the net income means Gross Income minus Tax.
Therefore, in view of ratio laid-down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal
ought to have considered the monthly income of the claimant
– appellant as Rs.5960/-. Therefore, the monthly income of the
deceased is reassessed at Rs.5960/-. Though at the time of
accident, the claimant – appellant herein was aged about 35
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
years, however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the
future prospects of the claimant – appellant. Therefore, in
view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in
2017 (16) SCC 680 and Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in
2022 INSC 1202 & Sandip Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande & Anr
reported in 2017 (3) SCC 351, 50% of the monthly income is
added on account of future prospects of the claimant –
appellant. Thus, after adding the monthly income, it would
come to Rs.8,940/- (Rs.5960/- + Rs.2980/- (50% of
Rs.5,960/-).
9. It has been argued by learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the Insurance Company that the income of the
claimant – appellant herein was not reduced after the
accident. Therefore, he is not entitled to get the compensation
under the head of future loss of income. Such contention is
not sustainable in view of ratio laid-down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Soni Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited & Ors. reported in 2026 ACJ 109, wherein at para
Nos. 11 & 12, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“11. It is pertinent to note that, at the time
of the accident, the claimant-appellant was
serving in the Indian Army, a profession
which demands highest standards of
physical fitness, alertness, and endurance.
Any impairment or disability resulting from
the said accident is, therefore, not merely a
personal affliction but one that has a direct
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
bearing on his ability to effectively
discharge his duties. Such an impairment is
likely to adversely affect his efficiency,
career prospects both in service or
thereafter, and overall service capability in
a profession where physical robustness is a
fundamental prerequisite, thereby justifying
compensation as was awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. The mere fact that the claimant-
appellant continued in service or did not
seek premature retirement could not have
been determinative of the issue, as loss of
earning capacity may subsist
notwithstanding continuation in
employment. Likewise, loss of promotional
prospects is required to be assessed on
reasonable probabilities having regard to
the nature of employment and extent of
disability, and does not require strict proof.
The High Court substantially reduced the
compensation on the ground that the
amounts awarded were excessive. Such an
exercise amounts to re- appreciation of
evidence which is beyond the permissible
scope of appellate jurisdiction under the
Motor Vehicles Act.”
Thus, in view of ratio laid-down by Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of Soni Sharma (supra), the claimant – appellant herein
is entitled to get the future loss of income despite the fact that
after the accident, the income was not reduced.
10. The learned Tribunal has assessed the functional
disability at 29%, which is not under challenge. It is not in
dispute that at the time of accident, the claimant – appellant
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
herein was aged about 35 years. Therefore, considering the
age of the claimant–appellant herein and applying the
multiplier of 16, the future loss of income is required to be
computed by taking the functional disability at 29%. Thus, the
compensation under the head of future loss of income would
come to Rs.4,97,780/- (Rs.8940/-x29%x12x16).
11. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-
under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.10,000/-
under the head of special diet, attendant charges and
transportation. The compensations awarded under these
heads are not under challenge.
12. The learned Tribunal has not awarded the compensation
towards medical expenses. The claimant–appellant has
produced on record medical bills amounting to Rs.5,37,666/-
at Exhs.52 and 53. The claimant–appellant herein has also
proved the certificate issued by GETCO at Exh.54, wherein it
has been certified that he incurred medical expenses to the
tune of Rs.5,37,666/-. The said certificate further reveals that
the original medical bills were submitted to the Department
for reimbursement and that an amount of Rs.2,61,671/- was
reimbursed by the Department on the condition that the said
amount would be refunded in the event the claimant receives
compensation towards medical expenses. The learned
Tribunal discarded the said certificate on the ground that its
author was not examined by the claimant–appellant. However,
it is pertinent to note that the document was exhibited by a
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
judicial order and formed part of the evidence on record.
Despite this, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate and rely
upon the contents thereof while determining the
compensation payable to the claimant – appellant herein. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has
committed a manifest error in ignoring the certificate at
Exh.54 and in not awarding any compensation under the head
of medical expenses. The documentary evidence on record
clearly establishes that the claimant–appellant herein had
incurred substantial medical expenditure on his treatment of
injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the claimant–
appellant herein is entitled to be compensated under the head
of medical expenses on the basis of the evidence available on
record.
13. It is settled proposition of law that the learned Tribunal is
not bound by the strict provision of the Evidence Act, as the
same has been held by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. T.R.Verma reported
in AIR 1957 SC 882. Thus, in view of the ratio laid-down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of T.R.Verma (supra), the learned
Tribunal ought to have considered the certificate issued by
GETCO. Further, it is evident from the certificate that the
reimbursement of part payment was made subject to return of
amount to the Department, therefore, the claimant – appellant
herein is entitled for the entire amount spent by him in his
medical treatment. Hence, accordingly, the entire amount by the
claimant – appellant herein in his medical treatment is required
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
to be awarded. Hence, accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,37,666/- is
awarded under the head of medical expenses.
14. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the
claimant-appellant herein shall be entitled for the following
compensation:-
Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded in
rupees.
1 Future loss of income 4,97,780/-
2 Pain, Shock and Suffering (+) 15,000/-
3 Medical Expenses (+) 5,37,666/-
4 Special diet, Attendant
charges & Transportation
(+) 10,000/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 10,60,446/-
(Minus) Compensation
awarded by impugned
(-) Rs. 99,700/-
Judgment and Award
Enhanced amount of
Rs.9,60,746/-
compensation
15. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the claimant -
appellant shall be entitled for an additional compensation of
Rs.9,60,746/- (Rs.10,60,446/- – Rs.99,700/-). 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.
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026

C/FA/2249/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
16. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal
stands allowed partly and judgment and award is modified to
that extent. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
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.
17. 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.
18. Pending application, if any stands disposed of.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 27 16:09:34 IST 2026