Post-accident salary increase does not preclude compensation for loss of future earning capacity due to permanent physical disability.

On September 5, 2010, the claimant (Manoj Jerambhai Vasoya) was riding a motorcycle when he was struck by a truck.

The claimant alleged the truck driver turned suddenly without an indicator, causing the claimant’s left leg to be amputated below the knee.

While the FIR was lodged against the truck driver, the police subsequently filed a charge-sheet against the claimant; however, the claimant was later acquitted by the Trial Court.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jamnagar, awarded the claimant ₹14,54,515 with 9% interest, holding the truck driver 80% negligent.

The Insurance Company appealed on the grounds of contributory negligence and challenged the quantum of future economic loss, noting the claimant's salary increased during the pendency of the petition.

In motor accident claims, evidence led before the Tribunal carries more weight than police papers/charge-sheets, as established in National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 596.

Regarding quantum, the court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Soni Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Ors. (2026 ACJ 109), which establishes that a mere increase in income or continuation in service does not negate a claim for loss of earning capacity or future promotional prospects, especially in roles requiring physical fitness.

The High Court rejected the appellant's argument on negligence, noting that while the charge-sheet named the claimant, the Panchnama and FIR supported the claimant's version that the truck turned suddenly without an indicator.

Following Chamundeswari, the court prioritized the unrebutted oral testimony of the claimant over the police charge-sheet.

On the issue of quantum, the court reasoned that income increases are often tied to inflation and the cost-of-living index rather than a lack of disability impact.

Applying the Soni Sharma doctrine, the court held that physical impairment (leg amputation) inherently affects long-term efficiency and promotional prospects, making the compensation for future loss of income valid regardless of the claimant's post-accident salary hike.

The court held that the 80:20 apportionment of negligence was justified based on the evidence and confirmed that future economic loss is compensable even if the claimant’s current income has risen.

The court ordered the Registry to transmit any deposited amounts to the Tribunal and returned the Record and Proceedings.