Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Satnamsing Mahendrasinh Khaira on 17 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1762 of 2023
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 61 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1762 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
SATNAMSING MAHENDRASINH KHAIRA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance in First Appeal:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
Appearance in Cross Objection:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2, 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 17/02/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] By way of First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant - insurance company has assailed the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara (for short "learned Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.984/2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition in favor of the original claimant by directing the appellant herein - original opponent No.3 - insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.19,08,550/- to the original claimant with interest at the rate of 9% Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined per annum from the date of claim petition. Cross Objection No.61/2024 in First Appeal No.1762 of 2023 is filed by the original claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeals and cross- objections are as follows:
[2.1] On 18.06.2011, when the claimant was going as pedestrian from GIDC, Ranoli, the opponent No.1 came driving his Tanker No.GJ-6-VV- 6738 with full speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the claimant causing the accident whereupon the claimant was thrown on the road and front wheel of left side of the tanker rolled over the left leg of the claimant and the claimant sustained grievous fracture injuries on left leg and on various parts of the body. Pursuant thereto, complaint being I-CR No.49/2011 came to be registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station. Therefore, the claimant filed MACP No.984/2011 earlier seeking compensation of Rs.25 lakh however, the claim amount is subsequently increased to Rs.60 lakh by way of an amendment application (Exh.24), which was allowed.
[2.2] After considering the evidence produced on record by the respective parties, learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold the original opponent No.1 solely negligent for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.19,08,550/- to the original claimant with 9% interest per annum. Hence, present First Appeal is filed by the appellant - insurance company challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground of exorbitant compensation and cross- objection is filed by the original claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellant has Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the annual income of the claimant on the basis of TDS certificate and though income tax returns are produced on record, the learned Tribunal ignored the same and awarded exorbitant compensation. He has further submitted that though minor injury is sustained which has caused functional disability of only 16%, learned Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation though there is no functional loss as the claimant even after the accident was doing managerial work and was running transport business and as such there is no loss of income to the claimant. He has further submitted that even after the accident, the claimant is running his business in the same fashion as he was doing it prior to accident by engaging driver and providing trucks and other vehicles and therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the expenditure to be incurred by the claimant towards wear and tear of vehicles, diesel, consumables, salary for driver and cleaner and expenses towards maintenance of vehicles though the learned Tribunal has assessed annual income of claimant at Rs.8 lakh. He has further argued that even under the head of pain, shock and suffering and actual loss of income huge amount is awarded. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal and reduce the compensation accordingly.
[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim appearing for the original claimant has opposed the First Appeal and in support of the Cross Objection, he has submitted that alongwith transport business, the claimant was doing work of driving truck and driving license of the claimant is produced before the learned Tribunal however, due to permanent disability sustained in the accident, the claimant is unable to drive the truck and therefore, has requested to consider loss of income from driving work and requested to consider 100% functional Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined disability. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding only Rs.2 lakh towards actual loss of income. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the first appeal and allow the cross objection.
[5.0] Since present appeal and cross objection raises challenge to quantum of compensation only and involvement of vehicle, negligence and liability is not in dispute, present first appeal and cross objections are considered in narrow compass.
[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company and learned advocate appearing for the original claimants and perusing the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence produced and adduced by both the parties including the deposition of the claimant (Exh.28), complaint (Exh.90), panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.91) as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, wherein it is held that it is settled law that negligence is required to be proved in claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability and not beyond doubt and even as per the complaint, it emerges that the driver of the offending Tanker came driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner with full speed and hit the claimant and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered 100% negligence on the part of the offending Tanker.
[7.0] In order to prove his income, original claimant deposed at Exh.28 and has examined Mr. Chintan D. Popat, Chartered Accountant at Exh.75. Perusing the said evidence, it appears that Mr. Chintan Popat has produced certificate issued by him which is produced at Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined Exh.77 for showing monthly income of the claimant. Perusing the said certificate it appears that said certificate is issued on the basis of Form 26AS from the website of income tax department and tried to prove the income of the claimant. In his evidence, Mr. Chintan Popat has stated that as per as per the Form 26AS, annual income of claimant for the year 2009-10 was Rs.8,06,209/- and he was paying EMI of Rs.33,306/- per month and average income may be considered three times of the amount of EMI. Based on the aforesaid document, the learned Tribunal has accepted the said income. It is needless to say that Form 26AS is not proof of income and is only a document to show receipts of payments towards bill raised to any party or firm which includes all expenses including vehicle maintenance charges, salary of driver and cleaner, maintenance charges, expenses towards diesel, consumables etc. and such expenses are required to be deducted.
[7.1] Herein, it is pertinent to note that though witness is examined at Exh.77, neither by the insurance company nor learned Tribunal has considered the fact that in case of non-production of of any account or supporting document qua income under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, presumptive income is required to be considered and tax paid on said account or income. But, herein, rather than considering the said aspect, the learned Tribunal fell into error and considered only receipt of payments and such receipts of payments are treated as income which is not permissible, as income tax returns are produced on record, which are acknowledgement of income and is considered definite proof of income because the income tax return is consolidation of all earnings and all financial tax liabilities of payer at the end of financial year and income tax return is treated as authoritative proof of income. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined Malarvizhi & Ors vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in 2020 ACJ SC 526 as for the AY 2010-11 gross income of the claimant is mentioned as Rs.1,65,254/- and for the AY 2011-12, gross income of the claimant is mentioned as Rs.1,55,632/-, which is latest ITR after the accident and the same is filed on 06.07.2011.
[7.2] Further, in order to prove the income, the claimant has examined one Harpalsinh Hitendrasinh Gohel (Exh.47), who is Branch Manager of Shri Ram Transport Finance Company and claimant has tried to prove his income and from the statement of account the claimant has tried to prove that he was able to run the business to prove his financial capacity but perusing the said evidence, at the outset, it is worth to mention that merely to obtain loan from any financial institution to run the business is not proof of income. The said evidence itself reveals that the claimant is unable to repay the loan and loan is re-financed. Merely to get re-financed a loan is not a ground to consider the same as income. If someone borrows a loan from any financial institution and that too from private firm or company and then argue that he is able to repay the same, would not be sufficient to prove that his financial capacity should be considered three times more than the amount he has borrowed or obtained by way of loan from any financial institution. The said argument of learned advocate for the original claimant is hypothetical and such evidence of witness is not helpful to claimant on two counts i.e. (i) loan / advances are always treated as liability and in case of failure of making the payment of interest, obviously would adversely affect the capital accounts and erose networth of firm and (ii) statutory document of ITR is available on record and hence, question does not arise to consider such hypothetical evidence to presume the income of the claimant. Once conclusive ITRs are available on record, such Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined statutory document is required to be given primacy and is required to be accepted. Hence, the said evidence is also not helpful to the claimant. Further, at this stage, it would not be out of place to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein the Apex Court held that while awarding compensation, the Court is required to follow the guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.55, which reads as under:
"55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just compensation"
and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of "standardization" so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age."
In view of above, the learned Tribunal has to consider or Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined determine the compensation on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard. The concept of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. It is true that claimant cannot expect a windfall however, simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite wide yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation"
and determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the claimant and even after applying the apposite multiplier, the Tribunal has to award the just compensation. To award the just compensation, the Tribunal has to maintain uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum.
[7.3] Herein, it is pertinent to note that conveniently, the claimant has not shown willingness to produce the ITR but has produced the income tax returns subsequently, the claimant has produced the income tax returns after examination of the said witness on 29.08.2022. The said Chartered Accountant remained silent qua net income and income tax return which is filed by the claimant at Exh.87 wherein for the AY 2010-11, gross income of the claimant is mentioned as Rs.1,65,254/-. In the said return, no other income or capital account or current assets or loan or advance have been mentioned and all columns are left blank. The date of accident is 18.06.2011 and said income tax return, which is a statutory document, is filed on 07.12.2010 and therefore, is required to be considered as evidence. Even, in the income tax return for AY 2011-12 filed on Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined 06.07.2011, gross income of the claimant is mentioned as Rs.1,55,632/-. Hence, it clearly reveals that the said return is last return which is required to be considered.
[7.4] As income tax return is a statutory document and in both the income tax returns, annual income of claimant is respectively mentioned as Rs.1,65,254/- and Rs.1,55,632/-, average of two income tax returns is required to be considered vide PAN Card No.AGCPT1637J, ITRs and Form No.26AS and same PAN number and name of claimant has reflected and therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the annual income of the claimant at Rs.8 lakh based on Form No.60 and deduction of TDS vide Form 26AS. As discussed in earlier part, this Court is of considered view that Form No.26AS is not proof of income upto that extent the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering Rs.8 lakh as annual income of the claimant ought to have been considered at Rs.1,60,000/- i.e. average of the amount mentioned in two income tax returns. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, annual income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.1,60,000/-.
[8.0] So far as disability sustained by the claimant is concerned, Dr. Tushar Modi has certified disability of 32% of left lower limb however, with the consent of parties, same is agreed at 16%. Learned advocate for the claimant has argued that claimant was driving the truck and therefore, 100% functional disability is required to be considered. In the cross-examination, claimant has denied that even at present he is doing driving work but admitted that he is having valid driving license which was valid upto 14.07.2011 and thereafter, he has not got it renewed but he has not cancelled the said driving license. He has admitted that he has not produced any evidence or medical opinion to Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined show that he is unable to drive the vehicle. The disability certificate is issued by Dr. Tushar Modi, who has not treated the claimant. The claimant has also stated in his cross-examination that Dr. Rajesh Shah had treated the claimant. The claimant has admitted that he has receievd the amount of treatment under the mediclaim policy and he has stated that he is not paying the income tax but he does have the PAN Card and he has stated that he is giving vehicles on commission basis and from commission, he is earning. Hence, this is not a case wherein the claimant is 100% disabled or sustained any such permanent disablement due to which his income is totally lost. Hence, in the present case, 100% functional disablement is not required to be considered.
[8.1] Learned Tribunal has considered 16% disablement body as a whole of the claimant to determine the future economic loss. It is needless to say that there is a difference between the functional disability and physical disability. The learned Tribunal has to assess the functional disability based on avocation and evidence produced on record. The disability certificate (Exh.45) is issued by Dr. Tushar Modi wherein the injury is stated as "fracture of bicondylar tibia left side knee and fracture of bimalleolar pott's left ankle" and injury of lower limb is stated. The said disability certificate is issued on the basis of clinical examination wherein the claimant himself has stated that he is unable to drive but perusing the evidence produced on record, present claimant is busy in transportation work and he is getting commission from his profession / business and such work is a sedentary work. No any proof that he has engaged someone to drive the transport vehicle. Even if we accept for the sake of argument, his collective income is reflected in the ITR and hence, considering his avocation of work, if we consider the said certificate, fracture is united Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined and stated that movement is restricted but not defined accurately as per the guidelines issued for assessment of disability, as per the government notification dated 04.01.2018, by Department of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment qua issuance of disablement and said criteria and the parameters are required to be followed. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India, in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).534/2020 dated 16.11.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued certain directions, which read as under:
"(iv) As far as the aspect of the issuance of certificate on disability of victims is concerned it is reiterated that the guidelines laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 mandatorily must be followed by the MACTs, in respect of loss of income due to injury/disablement. The District Medical Board is also directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India vide Gazette Notification S. No.61, dated 05.01.2018, for issuance of Disability Certificate in order to bring Pan India uniformity.
The consequence is that the MACT would ascertain that permanent disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board or body authorized by it is in accordance with the Gazette Notification alone. Once the certificate is issued in this manner, the same can be marked for purposes of being taken into consideration as evidence without the necessity of summoning the concerned witness to give formal proof of the documents unless there is some reason for suspicion on the document."
Even as per the case of Anoop Maheshwari vs Oriental Insurance Co., Neutral Citation - 2025 INSC 1075, so far the disability is concerned, the Certificate issued by the Medical Board can be accepted, even without a witness being examined. As per the said guideline also, disability certificate is not issued in tune with the said Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined guidelines and restriction of movement like mild restriction, moderate restriction or severe restriction or range of motion or deformity is not clearly mentioned or opined about the said disablement. It only reveals that 0.5 cm shortening and doctor has opined permanent and partial disability of 32% of left lower limb. It is needless to say that it is only an opinion and there may be a variation ranging from 4 to 5% in the opinion. Even if we accept the same, such disablement is opined for the lower limb and if we consider the assessment of disablement of lower limb, as per Kessler's Reference, 32% x 0.40 = 12.8%, which may be treated as disability body as a whole. Therefore, question does not arise to consider 100% functional disability. Even in the case of injury, how partial or permanent disablement resulted into loss of income is required to be considered. Herein, so far as profession of driving is concerned, the evidence produced on record does not inspire confidence on the ground that nonone has opined that the claimant was unable to drive the vehicle post accident and at Exh.39, the RTO Inspector, Mr. Rahulkumar Sumanbhai Rathod is examined. Perusing the said evidence, it appears that the license is produced at Exh.42 wherein it is mentioned that the claimant was authorized to drive the transport vehicle and class of vehicle and badge is issued for MMV / Auto Rickshaw and endorsement qua badge of Auto Rickshaw is also made at Exh.43.
[8.2] Further, the said witness has clearly admitted in his cross- examination done by the insurance company that merely non-renewal of driving license does not mean that person is unable to drive the vehicle. Further, he has admitted that at the time of issuing the license in Form No.1, medical expert has to certify about the capacity and competence of a person to drive the vehicle and based on the said certificate, license being issued. No such evidence is produced on Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined record. In view of above, in absence of any evidence inspiring confidence, this Court is of considered view that argument canvassed by learned advocate for the claimant to consider 100% functional disability is not accepted in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajaykumar & Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 343, considering the law with regard to determination of "just compensation". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar (Supra) has observed in paragraphs 8, 10, 11 and 18 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 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. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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 Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined 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 permanently 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 terns 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 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) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross- examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed 14 local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability."
Hence, 16% disability assessed by learned Tribunal is not disturbed.
[8.3] Under Section 168 of the MV Act, it is wide discretion conferred to the Tribunal for determination of the compensation but such determination of compensation should not be arbitrary and it must be based on certain data and material and reasonable nexus between loss incurred and the compensation to be awarded. It is the duty of the learned Tribunal to make award which appears to be just. The Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined Tribunal is required to give reasoning as to why it feels the award to be just. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is not beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. The legislature thought it appropriate always to use expression "just". The same is not without a purpose. It is an extremely difficutl task to asssess the compensation. The amount of compensation is to be determined on the ground of justness. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimant extant possible in almost same financial position as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen on them. In aforesaid background, where compensation awarded and quantum calculated by the Tribunal is not reasonable and arbitrary, in that event, appellate Court is not powerless to decide or reassess the quantum when appeal has been filed by insured and in appeal, re-appreciation of evidence is permissible and once Court come to the conclusion that the finding and reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal is perverse by ignoring the material or document produced or adduced on record then interference is permissible.
[8.4] Herein, this is not a case wherein serious injury is sustained which caused the claimant to be bed-ridden or amputated or paraplegic condition or in vegetative state. While awarding the compensation, Court has to consider the position of claimant as to whether he can enjoy his happiness which he was enjoying prior to the accident. Herein, no case or no evidence wherein present claimant remained permanently bed-ridden during his entire life or suffered such huge loss due to such injury. Further, while determining the compensation under Section 168 of the MV Act, it is imperative to grant compensation that appears to be just. The MV Act being a social welfare legislation which renders the way to corrective justice, Court should make endeavour to make good the human suffering to the Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined extent possible and to also save families which have lost their breadwinners or have been pushed to vagrancy. In such case, it is the responsibility on the shoulder of Court to grant adequate compensation however, always is required to be kept in mind that it is imperative for the Courts to grant such compensation which has nexus to the actual loss.
[8.5] Further, considering annual income of the claimant at Rs.1,60,000/- and 16% disability, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, as the claimant was aged 47 years at the time of accident, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, Rs.40,000/- (25% of Rs.1,60,000/-) towards future prospects is required to be added in the annual income of the claimant which would come to Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, considering 16% disability and applying multiplier of 13, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.4,16,000/- [Rs.32,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- x 16%) x 13] towards future loss of income.
[8.6] So far as actual loss of income is concerned, considering the disability and injuries sustained by the claimant, the learned Tribunal considered actual loss for three months and awarded Rs.2,00,000/-, without there being any finding in that regard. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, claimant is entitled to get compensation under the head of actual loss of income for the period of four months which would come to Rs.40,000/- (Rs.1,60,000 / 4 months). So far as compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of medical expenses is concerned, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.4550/- considering the medical bills produced at Exh.60 and in the considered opinion of this Court, no Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined interference is called for so far as compensation under the head of medical expenses is concerned.
[8.7] So far as compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is concerned, considering the nature of injury and disability, learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding and hence, the claimant is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. The compensation under the head of attendant, special diet and transportation charges awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- is also just and proper. Hence, the original claimant is now entitled to get the compensation as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future loss of income Rs.16,64,000/- Rs.4,16,000/-
Actual loss of income Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.40,000/-
Pain, shock and Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
suffering
Medical Expenses Rs.4550/- Rs.4550/-
Attendant, Spl. Diet and Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
transportation
Total Compensation Rs.19,08,550/- Rs.5,00,550/-
Thus, total compensation of Rs.19,08,550/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal being on excessive side, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, same is required to be reduced to the aforesaid extent i.e. Rs.5,00,550/- and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1762/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined aforesaid extent.
[9.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, First Appeal No.1762 of 2023 stands partly allowed and Cross Objection No.61/2024 in First Appeal No.1762/2023 stands dismissed and impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.984/2011 is modified and it is held that original claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.5,00,550/- only from the appellant - insurance company. As the appellant - insurance company has already deposited the entire amount of compensation with the learned Tribunal, learned Tribunal is directed to refund Rs.14,08,000/- (Rs.19,08,550 - Rs.5,00,550) alongwith accrued interest thereon to the appellant - insurance company.
[9.1] Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs.5,00,550/- with accrued interest thereon as awarded by the learned Tribunal, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure.
[9.2] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid.
[10.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:08:52 IST 2026