Facts
On June 12, 2012, the appellant, a diamond worker, was traveling in a goods tempo [Reg. No. GJ-23-W-788] with his goods when it collided with a Maruti Eeco [Reg. No. GJ-17-N-7288] driven negligibly.
Source reference: p. 2The appellant sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent partial disability.
Source reference: no citationThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kheda, held the Eeco driver 80% negligent and the tempo driver 20% negligent.
Source reference: p. 2The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹2,20,000/- by assessing the appellant’s monthly income at ₹3,000/- and functional disability at 22%.
Source reference: p. 3, 13Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant appealed for enhancement.
Source reference: no citationIssues
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant's monthly income at ₹3,000/- instead of considering minimum wages for skilled/semi-skilled labor.
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the appellant is entitled to an addition for "future prospects" in a personal injury claim.
Source reference: p. 53. Whether the assessment of 22% functional disability was just and proper given the medical evidence.
Source reference: p. 6, 11Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of determining "just compensation" under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Source reference: p. 1It relied on *Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.* [2012(1) TAC 1 (SC)] to adopt prevailing minimum wage rates for income assessment.
Source reference: p. 5Regarding future prospects, it followed *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* [2017 ACJ 2700], allowing a 25% addition for the age group of 45 years.
Source reference: p. 5For determining the multiplier, it applied *Sarla Verma v. DTC* [2009 (6) SCC 121].
Source reference: p. 6Most critically, it utilized *Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar* [2011 (1) SCC 343] to distinguish between physical impairment and "functional disability" (loss of earning capacity).
Source reference: p. 7-11Reasoning
The Court found the Tribunal’s income assessment of ₹3,000/- insufficient, as it ignored the prevailing minimum wages for semi-skilled workers, which the Court recalculated to ₹4,850/-.
Source reference: p. 5Following *Pranay Sethi*, the Court added 25% for future prospects (₹1,212/-), totaling a monthly income of ₹6,062/-.
Source reference: p. 6Regarding disability, although the claimant produced a certificate alleging 44% disability of the limbs [Exh. 69], the Court noted the Doctor’s admission that no treatment was sought for years and the certificate appeared "ready to use".
Source reference: p. 11Applying the *Raj Kumar* steps, the Court held that since the claimant’s work involved rubbing diamonds (sedentary/skilled), the Tribunal’s assessment of 22% functional disability to the whole body was reasonable and required no interference.
Source reference: p. 12Holding
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, answering that the income and future prospects required upward revision.
The Court enhanced the total compensation from ₹2,20,000/- to ₹3,38,017/-.
Source reference: p. 13Specifically, the "Future Loss of Income" was increased by ₹1,13,172/- and "Actual Loss of Income" by ₹5,550/-.
Source reference: p. 13The Insurance Companies were directed to deposit the additional ₹1,18,017/- with interest and proportionate costs within four weeks.
Source reference: p. 14Original Court PDF
Kalubhai Dulabhai Prajapati v. Heirs of Ilyasbhai Gulamnabi Vhora & Ors. [R/First Appeal No. 1077 of 2022]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in