Gujarat High Court
Ambala Muljibhai Makwana (Deceased) vs Jignesh R Shah on 2 March, 2026
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 24/12/2025
Pronounced On : 02/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3613 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AMBALA MULJIBHAI MAKWANA (DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
JIGNESH R SHAH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the common judgment dated 27.04.2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the common judgment") passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition nos. 896 of 2003 and 1464 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby both the claim petitions are partly Page 1 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined allowed by the Tribunal. In Motor Accident Claim Petition no. 896 of 2003, the Tribunal allowed the claim of Rs.18,32,660/- in favour of the claimants of the pillion rider. While the captioned appeal concerns Motor Accident Claim Petition no. 1464 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the claim petition") where, the Tribunal, has allowed the compensation of Rs.10,44,212/- together with proportionate cost and interest. The respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the captioned appeal seeking enhancement on various grounds.
2. Mr.Adnan Khan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. MTM Hakim, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that on 18.01.2003, after discharging their duties, the appellant and the pillion rider, left Vadodara for Dakor. The appellant was driving the motor cycle while the deceased was pillion seated and when they were moving towards Dakor, the tanker bearing registration no. G.T.B. No. 5661 (hereinafter referred to as "the vehicle in question"), driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor vehicle from rear side. As a result, the appellant sustained serious injuries while the pillion rider sustained fatal injuries. It is further submitted that so far as the appellant is concerned, initially the claim lodged was for Rs.25,00,000/-; however, during the pendency of the claim petition, considering the severity of the injuries, it was enhanced to Rs.45,00,000/-.
2.1 It is next submitted that owing to the accident, the appellant was admitted to the Bhailal Amin General Hospital Page 2 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined and remained as an indoor patient for almost one month i.e. from 18.01.2003 to 14.02.2003. The injuries sustained were fracture spinal cord, compression Fr. D-11-12 with paraplegia with bladder/bowel involvement. It is further submitted that as per the certificate of the doctor, the appellant had sustained 80% lifelong disability, resulting into 100% functional disability. It is further submitted that the appellant at the time of the accident was aged about 50 years and considering the nature of the injuries, he opted for voluntary retirement. Thus, the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of 5 as against the applicable multiplier of 13.
2.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Preetha Krishnan & Ors vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-SC 76083 wherein reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Hari Om Construction vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 71033.
2.3 It is next submitted that the Tribunal in view of the injuries sustained ought to have considered 30% prospective future rise in income under the head of future loss of income. The appellant was rendered totally bedridden and was compelled to opt for voluntary retirement. It is submitted that Vijay Bhupatray Vyas working as in-charge in the settlement cell of the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the IPCL") has indicated that had Page 3 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined the appellant completed his remaining service, he would have at the time of retirement in the year 2012, received total salary of Rs.42,27,818/- coupled with gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the age of the appellant and he being salaried person with government job, ought to have awarded 30% prospective rise in income.
2.4 It is further submitted that the Tribunal, was wrong in awarding Rs.75,000/- only, towards loss of pain, shock and suffering considering the lifelong disability of the appellant. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways reported in (2014) 3 SCC 210. It is submitted that the Tribunal, was also in error in awarding the compensation under the various heads namely special diet, attendant charges, transportation charges and the interest on the lower side. It ought to have been appreciated that the appellant was admitted as an indoor patient for almost one month and looking to the injuries sustained, the appellant would be taking treatment during his lifetime. The appellant has reached the age of senior citizen and currently also, he is unable to move around without the additional help and would require permanent attendant to take care of him. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Bhavik @ Bhavin Dwarkadas Vithlani vs. Ganpatsinh Manubha Jadeja reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243099. It is submitted that the appellant therein was paraplegic. It is urged that the compensation awarded, may be suitably enhanced in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments.
Page 4 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined
3. Though served, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have chosen not to enter appearance.
4. Per contra, Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3 has opposed the captioned appeal. It is submitted that considering the age of the appellant being 50 years and the nature of his employment, it is impermissible to argue that the Tribunal has committed any error in applying the multiplier of 5. It is further submitted that the appellant willingly and without any compulsion opted for voluntary retirement and accordingly has received a substantial amount of Rs.8,96,950/- and the Tribunal, has rightly concluded that there was no compulsion on the part of the appellant to have opted for voluntary retirement. Had the injuries sustained was the cause for the appellant for opting for voluntary retirement, the question of future loss of income would arise. In the case on hand, in the absence of any compulsion, it cannot be said that the appellant has suffered any loss of future income. It is further submitted that as per the certificate issued by the doctor the appellant has sustained 80% disability and hence, it cannot be said that the appellant has sustained 100% functional disability. So far as the other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the compensation and no error can be said to have been committed by it considering the evidence produced by the claimant. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs.75,000/- awarded as compensation under the head of damages for pain, suffering and trauma is in sync with the injuries sustained. Even the Tribunal has allowed Rs.5,000/-
Page 5 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined towards special diet and Rs.3,000/- towards transportation and attendant charges. Weighing the overall circumstances and the evidence, the Tribunal has allowed a fair and just compensation which, does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length, the issue which arises for the determination of this Court is whether the Tribunal in the facts and evidence on record, has rightly awarded the compensation? Having bestowed our careful consideration upon the observations and conclusions reached by the Tribunal, this court deems it appropriate to modify the judgment as per the discussion hereafter.
6. Succinctly put, the facts are that on 18.01.2003, the appellant along with pillion rider was traveling on a motor cycle to Dakor for darshan, when the vehicle in question dashed with the motor cycle from the rear side. The pillion rider sustained fatal injuries while, the appellant sustained compression fracture D-11-12 with paraplegia with bladder/bowel involvement. The appellant was admitted to Bhailal Amin General Hospital and remained as indoor patient from 18.01.2003 to 14.02.2003. As per the certificate-Exh.55 issued by the hospital, the appellant, sustained serious injuries and his condition was indicated as paraplegic with 80% disability. Certificate, certifies that the total disablement would last lifelong. The appellant had preferred the claim initially for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.45,00,000/-.
Page 6 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that two claim petitions were filed one by the pillion rider being MACP no. 896 of 2003 and another claim petition being MACP no. 1464 of 2003 by the appellant. So far as MACP no. 896 of 2003 is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.18,32,660/- for which, no appeal is preferred whereas in the claim petition by the appellant, the learned Judge has awarded Rs.10,44,212/-. Following issues were formulated:
(a) Whether the claimants prove that the deceased Mansang sustained fatal injuries and the injured Ambalal sustained bodily injuries on account of the rashness or negligence in driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?
(b) What amount, if any, the claimants are entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?
8. The issue no. 1 was decided in affirmative and the issue no. 2 was as per the final order. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant was the First Information Report- Exh.24, the Panchnama drawn of the place of occurrence of accident-Exh.25, the pay slip from the IPCL-Exh. 34, the disability certificate- Exh. 49, the injuries certificate issued by the Bhailal Amin General Hospital-Exh.53, the treatment certificate-Exh.54, the sanction letter by IPCL allowing VRS, etc. The Tribunal, considering the First Information Report- Exh.24, the cross-examination of the appellant and the panchnama of scene of occurrence, in paragraph 19, concluded that had the vehicle in question was driven Page 7 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined carefully, the accident would have been avoided. In paragraphs 19 and 23 of the impugned judgment it is observed thus:
"19) Further, as regard non-mentioning the number of alleged vehicle in FIR, I would like to make mention here that the circumstances. which are mentioned in the F.I.R. indicate that the accident cannot be doubted only on the ground of not disclosing the vehicle number in FIR inasmuch as the Investigating officer conducted investigation of the case and on completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending tanker holding that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker, who fled away after causing the accident and fatal bodily injuries to the motor cyclists. Therefore, naturally when the tanker driver fled away along with tanker, there is a reason to believe that the unknown person i.e. informant may not have been within the knowledge of the vehicle number especially when the tanker driver, as per charge sheet, after causing the accident fled away. Therefore, there is no escape to disbelieve the evidence of the injured eye witness that the accident occurred because of the hit given by the tanker driver.
23) Under these circumstances, after analyzing the pleadings and ample evidence, both oral and documentary, especially applicant-
Ambalal, who is injured eye witness, I am of the considered view that the accident could have been avoided if the tanker driver had in careful manner driven the vehicle. To reiterate, the evidence does not destroy the applicant's case at all. It is also noteworthy that the charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the tanker. Hitting of motor cycle from behind resulting in fatal/bodily injuries to the motorcyclist is by itself sufficient to conclude that the tanker driver was rash and negligent and accordingly, applying the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitor my reply to Issue No.1 shall be in the Affirmative accordingly."
9. While dealing with the issue as to what amount the claimants are entitled by way of compensation, the Tribunal considered the affidavit- Exh.26, the medical certificate- Exhs.53 and 54 indicating the treatment taken and awarded Rs.94,742/- towards the actual loss of income for 158 days. Rs.86,000/- towards different heads; viz. mental pain shock, special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges.
Page 8 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined Furthermore, Rs.8,63,470/- is awarded towards loss of future income. While doing so, the Tribunal, considered the monthly salary of Rs.17,989/- and calculated 80% disability and arrived at an amount of Rs.14,391.20/-. Rs.1,72,694/- was considered as an annual income and applying the multiplier of 5, the appellant is held entitled to get Rs.8,63,470/-. Paragraphs 52 to 55 of the common judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"52) In short, above quoted citations contemplate different and distinct kind of compensation. Adverting to the case under discussion, keeping in mind that it is a case of personal injury, for assessment of proper damages, evidence adduced by the parties has to be clearly analyzed and under-stood. As per the say of the present applicant, the injuries which he suffered due to the accident rendered him helpless and handicap for the rest of his life. In near future, he was due for promotion, but have lost further promotions because of paraplegia effect since he was confined to bed since the date of occurrence till today. Despite the better treatment, he did not get recovery and as such, he sustained disability i.e. Deformity of Disabilities Handicapped to the extent of 80% of both lower limbs and subsequently, he had made up his mind and proposed for voluntarily retirement since at the relevant point of time. In support thereof, he has examined the treating doctor as well as the doctor assessing the disability. According to Dr. Rozi Mathai, Ex-48, at the relevant time, she was discharging her duties as R.M.O. and injured had come to Jamnabai Hospital for assessment of disability and she together with other two doctors, after ensuring assessed 80% disability and issued disability certificate Ex-49 which is signed by her and other two doctors. However, in her cross examination, she admitted that the said hospital used to issue such disability certificate to the person who is by birth handicap. She has no knowledge as to whether the injured had submitted his treatment papers or not. The injured had not taken any treatment as I.P. in the said hospital. She has not brought with her any case papers so as to give history regarding accidental injuries to the injured.
Normally, they issues such certificate on receiving the history from injured.
53) A further perusal of the oral evidence tendered by Dr. Uday Purandare, MLO, Ex-52, reveals that since last 20 years he is rendering his services as MLO in Bhailalbhai Amin Hospital. The injured had sustained dorsum lumber spinal compression fracture which had reached to contusion D-10 degree resulting in Page 9 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined Paraplegia affecting his bladder and bowel involvement for which he was operated upon. Considering his nature of serious injuries, Certificate, Ex-53 was issued by him. Certificates Ex-54 and 55 are signed by Dr. Pundir, which reveals that because of injury in spinal cord, both the lower limbs had a permanent Paraplegia effect to the extent of 80. In his cross examination, he has fairly admitted that the injured operated upon by Dr. Pundir. That he was not present at the time of operation. He denied that he had never seen the injured at any time. He had a direct talk with the injured. He also further admitted that Dr. Pundir was only there in Bhailalbhai hospital.
54) Having considered the evidence let-in by the aforesaid doctors as well as the co-employee Vijay Vyas, Ex-33, nowhere it has come during chief/cross examination as to whether the said injuries and after effect thereof would affect the service career of the applicant OR as to whether because of said injuries and after effect thereof, the injured was compelled and/or is required to take voluntary retirement. The said witness- Vijay Vyas has specifically stated that the injured had retired under the V.R.S. Scheme of company at his own. Nowhere it has come on record that the injured was proposed by the company and/or compelled to take voluntary retirement OR the impact of such permanent disability would affect adversely on his earning capacity. The injured at his own proposed for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Therefore, the facts of the decisions relied on by the Ld. Advocate for the applicant reported in 2010 ACJ 490 (supra) are no more attracted in the facts of the case on hand. However, at the same time, considering the ratio laid down in State of Gujarat Vs. Somabhai Dhulabhai Sindhara; 1993(2) G.L.H. 714, the Hon. High Court has clearly observed that "the loss of earning capacity on account of physical disability would be felt when the injured would, after the retirement, seek some private employment and the same should be rational to consider this aspect in arriving at a figure of future economic loss. Therefore, the Hon. High Court has given the multiplier of 5 years in the reported case. For the sake of repetition, there is no evidence showing that the injured was compelled the voluntary retirement. On the contrary, he has received an amount of Rs. 8,96,950/- under the Scheme of V.R.S., vide Ex-37 and 38. Under these circumstances, considering the monthly salary Rs. 17989/- and calculating the 80% disability, the monthly loss to the future income sustained by the applicant would come to Rs. 14391.20 ps., which would be Rs. 172694/- (rounded of Rs. 172694.40). As discussed herein above in detail, the applicant would be at loss in post-accident service and employment market as well as bearing in mind the ratio laid down by our own High Court, applying the multiplier of 5, the applicant is entitled to get Rs. 8,63,470/- by way of loss to the future income. Accordingly, I award the same.
Page 10 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined
55) Hence, the applicant is entitled to get Rs. 10,44,212/- by way of compensation under above mentioned different heads as per following break-up:
Rs. 00,75,000/- Mental Pain Shock Rs. 00,05,000/- Special diet Rs. 00,03,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 00,03,000/- Transportation charges Rs. 00,94,742/- Actual Loss of Income Rs. 08,63,470/- Future loss of Income Rs. 10,44,212/- Total"
10. The above mentioned determination of the compensation, needs to be brought into sync with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendran vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in (2022) 15 SCC 620. Paragraph 21 being apt to the issue on hand, it is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"21. Before parting, it needs emphasizing that in cases such as this, the Tribunal and the Courts must be conscious of the fact that the permanent disability suffered by the individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities but there are multiple other non-quantifiable implications for the victim. The very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship, and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of self-dignity. Such a Claimant must not be viewed as a modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens's classic, "Please Sir, I want some more". The efforts must be to substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognize his actual needs by accounting for the ground realities. The measures should however be in correct proportion. As is aptly said by Justice R.V Raveendran, while speaking for the Division Bench in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, just compensation is adequate compensation and the Award must be just that- no less and no more. The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel twist of fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant but is for seeking appropriate recompense to negotiate with the unforeseeable and the fortuitous twists is his impaired life. Therefore, while the money awarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers the unease of Page 11 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined being a burden on others), the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding 'just compensation'."
11. The appellant, has suffered cruel twist of fate, for, after the accident, the appellant, a healthy person had turned into a vegetative state and incapable of leading a productive life. Considering the income, the future prospects, what the appellant is claiming cannot be said to be extravagant but, just and reasonable compensation to take care of him for remainder of his life.
12. Undisputedly, the appellant was serving as Technician Grade-I with the IPCL and as per the salary slip of the month of January, 2003, the salary of the appellant was Rs.24,967.58/-. Income tax was deducted of Rs.6,978/- and the actual salary considered was Rs.17,989/- per month. The appellant during the treatment had availed of permissible leaves for five months and eight days and had remained without work. It is also not in dispute that for a period of six months, despite the treatment given to him the appellant did not return to normalcy. The aspects namely; the accident, the treatment taken and the permanent disability sustained by the appellant are not in dispute.
13. Adverting to the aspect of disability, it may be noted that the evidence in support thereof are not in dispute; however, a brief reference would be apt. Dr.Uday Ramchandra Purandhare was examined at Exh.52 and he has stated that the appellant has sustained spinal compression fracture D-11- 12 which had reached contusion upto D-10 resulting into Page 12 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined paraplegia for which, he was operated. He has also stated that considering the nature of serious injuries, certificate-Exh. 53 was issued by the Bhailal Amin General Hospital. As per the case summary-Exh.54, the appellant was operated and it suggests that the appellant suffered severe back ache and was unable to move his lower limbs following RTA. Exh. 55- medical certificate confirms the disability being lifelong and condition suggested is Paraplegic- 80% disability- both lower limbs. It is further stated that certificate reveals that owing to the injury in the spinal cord, the appellant has sustained paralysis in both the legs and the said impairment is permanent, in nature. Therefore, read the evidence Exhs. 54 and 55 in juxtaposition, it reveals that both the lower limbs of the appellant has sustained the effect of permanent paraplegia to the extent of 80%. Even the Tribunal in the opening paragraph of the judgment has observed thus:
"At the outset, I would like to mention that since the applicant had suffered the effect of Paraplegia because of accidental injuries, he was unable to walk and stand, therefore, for the purpose of recording the evidence, he was presented before the court in wheel-chair."
14. The evidence of the appellant- Exh.26 was recorded on 20.07.2010. Almost after seven and half years of the date of the accident, the appellant was unable to walk and stand and that is how he was brought in a wheelchair for the purpose of recording evidence. Therefore, the evidence and the certificates conclusively prove that the appellant has suffered 100% functional disability and not 80% disability.
15. The Tribunal considered the loss of future income for the Page 13 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined period of five months and eight days to the tune of Rs.94,742/-. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the appellant has received an amount of Rs.8,96,950/- under VRS as per the pay-slip and there is no evidence showing that the injured was compelled to take voluntary retirement. As a result, considering the monthly salary of Rs.17,989/- and calculating 80% disability, the monthly loss of future income sustained by the appellant was considered as Rs.14,391/-. Notably, 5 multiplier was applied on two grounds viz.(i) that the appellant was not compelled to take voluntary retirement and;
(ii) that the appellant has sustained 80% disability. Clearly, the appellant has suffered compression fracture D-11-12 with paraplegia and remained in the hospital as an indoor patient for one month, and thereafter as an outdoor patient, availing all the permissible privilege leave of 106 days and sick leave for 52 days i.e. in all, 158 days leave; around almost five months and eight days. Naturally, no company would allow its employee to remain on leave for such a long period and that is how as stated hereinabove, the appellant was compelled to opt for VRS. This aspect is strengthened by the medical papers produced on the record and especially certificates issued by the Bhailal Amin General Hospital Exh.55, according to which, the appellant has sustained 80% disability and is prevented from attending his job permanently. It is difficult to fathom that how a person with such a severe degree of disability could perform office work let alone, manage daily routine activities. The accident has severely impacted the appellant, compelling him to opt for voluntary retirement.
Page 14 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined
16. Adverting to the evidence of the appellant in this behalf, in his cross-examination, it is admitted that the medical expenses have been incurred by the IPCL. He has categorically denied that he has taken VRS voluntarily or that he was not possessing the requisite expertise. The undisputed chain of events namely, the accident taking place on 18.01.2003; injuries sustained, followed by the treatment of the appellant as an indoor patient with Bhailal Amin General Hospital for a period of one month; availing leaves for a period of five months and eight days, would go to suggest that the appellant was compelled to take VRS. Had there been any possibility of the capacity of the appellant performing his job, he would never had thought of taking VRS. Having left with no option, the appellant was compelled to apply for voluntary retirement. Accepting the request, the IPCL accorded the sanction on 25.06.2003. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in observing that nobody compelled the appellant to take VRS. The attending circumstances did compel the appellant to opt for VRS.
17. For the purpose of considering the future loss of income, important evidence is of Vijay Bhupatray Vyas, In-charge of the IPCL-Exh.33 and is worth referring to. In his evidence, he has stated that the appellant has retired under the VRS. He has clearly stated that had the appellant continued in the job, he could have earned Rs.42,27,818/- upto the year 2012 which aspect, has remained uncontroverted. It is agreed that the said calculation is made by him. He has also admitted about the scheme of promotion in currency and considering the Page 15 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined qualification of the appellant, he could have claimed promotion. Although in his cross-examination, it is stated that considering the qualification he could not have claimed promotion. The fact remains that had he remained in service, based on his salary at the relevant time, even without considering his future prospects, he would have earned approximately Rs.40,00,000/-.
18. At this stage, the judgment in the case of Preetha Krishnan & Ors vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors(supra) is worth referring to. Paragraphs 15 to 18 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
" 15. There can be no gainsaying that the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC represented the coming of a much more structured, uniform method of calculation of compensation in motor accident cases insofar as the multiplier to be applied is concerned. In this judgment itself, it was observed that the practice of applying multiplier which is equivalent to the number of years the deceased or the injured person had left in service, is the confusion that has to be avoided.
"41. ... Some tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method [Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 AC 601: (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)] is applicable.
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335], Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657]), which starts with an operative multiplier (2009) 6 SCC 121 of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 Page 16 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
16. It has been held time and again by this Court that a split multiplier is not to be adopted, as a matter of course, and is only to be used in the exceptional circumstances, with such circumstances being recorded. [See Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. DTC and Ors.] Reference may be made to N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., this Court held that the application of a split multiplier in a case involving a 52-year-old Assistant Professor of Mathematics was not justified. It was observed in reference to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi that the Rule of Thumb of adding 15% of the salary as future prospects in cases where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 was not to be deviated from.
17. Superannuation from service hardly qualifies as such an exceptional circumstance, which would justify the use of split multiplier. It is only a natural progression that a person who enters service must also exit at some point in time. The same (2009) 6 SCC 121 (2022) 14 SCC 712 (2017) 16 SCC 680 cannot be taken as a negative circumstance against the deceased person or a person injured severely, leading to incapacitation or permanent disability. The position, in our considered view, is evidently clear from what stood observed by this Court in Sumathi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., as under :
'....it is clear that in normal course, the compensation is to be calculated by applying the multiplier, as per the judgment of this Court Sarla Verma. Split multiplier cannot be applied unless specific reasons are recorded. The finding of the High Court that the deceased was having leftover service of only four years, cannot be construed as a special reason, for applying the split multiplier for the purpose of assessing the compensation. In normal course, compensation is to be assessed by applying multiplier as indicated by this Court in the judgment in Sarla Verma. As no other special reason is recorded for applying the split multiplier, judgment1 of the High Court is fit to be set aside by restoring the award of the Tribunal.' (Emphasis supplied)
18. The judgment referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, i.e., K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer and Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy & Ors., in our considered view, does not support the use of a split multiplier. In both these judgments, this Court has held that there have to be cogent reasons recorded for its use. As Page 17 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined already observed above, retirement from service is not 'out of the 2021 SCC Online SC 3697 (2011) 4 SCC 689 (2013) 15 SCC 45 ordinary', 'exceptional' and 'cogent' for the same to qualify. It is also, a matter of considerable difficulty to conceive what such cogent or exceptional circumstances may be. In any event, the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra) had, in para 59.7 observed that the age of the deceased is the criterion to be utilized for multiplier. It does not provide for any other possibilities. This, in our considered view, does not even leave open the possibility of employment of split multiplier, whatsoever. As such, when dealing with a beneficial legislation which relies on just compensation as its bedrock, it is most prudent to tread the path of certainty, insofar as practicable. This is more so important in the context of age which is the primary basis for computation of compensation. In other words, split multiplier is a concept foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is not to be used by the Tribunal and/or Courts in calculation of the compensation."
19. Furthermore, in the case of the Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways(supra), the Apex Court took note of the injury and held that the claimant would be required to take treatment from time to time and considering the injuries sustained which left the claimant paralyzed for life, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was allowed. The Apex Court has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- on account of pain and suffering though it had also put a rider that the monetary compensation for pain and suffering is at best a palliative, the correct dose of which will have to be determined on a case to case basis. The cost of attendant was allowed at Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of the accident till he remains alive as the claimant would need one person to be with him for all times to come. Relevant paragraphs 15 to 22 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"15. Answering the above reference a three Judge Bench of this Court in Reshma Kumari and Ors. vs. Madan Mohan and Anr. reiterated the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) to the effect that in respect of a person who was on a fixed salary without provision Page 18 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined for annual increments or who was self-employed the actual income at the time of death should be taken into account for determining the loss of income unless there are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Though the expression "exceptional and extraordinary circumstances" is not capable of any precise definition, in Shakti Devi vs. New India Insurance Company Limited and Another there is a practical application of the aforesaid principle. The near certainty of the regular employment of the deceased in a government department following the retirement of his father was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of income by taking into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of income, accordingly, was quantified at double the amount that the deceased was earning at the time of his death.
16. Undoubtedly, the same principle will apply for determination of loss of income on account of an accident resulting in the total disability of the victim as in the present case. Therefore, taking into account the age of the claimant (25 years) and the fact that he had a steady income, as evidenced by the income-tax returns, we are of the view that an addition of 50% to the income that the claimant was earning at the time of the accident would be justified.
17. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, as held in Sarla Verma (supra) (para 42) or as prescribed under the Second Schedule to the Act, the correct multiplier in the present case cannot be 15 as held by the High Court. We are of the view that the adoption of the multiplier of 17 would be appropriate. Accordingly, taking into account the addition to the income and the higher multiplier the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant under the head "loss of income" is Rs. 10,53,150/- (Rs. 41300 + Rs.
20650= Rs. 61,950 x 17).
18. In so far as the medical expenses is concerned as the awarded amount of Rs.1,38,552/- has been found payable on the basis of the bills/vouchers etc. brought on record by the claimant we will have no occasion to cause any alteration of the amount of compensation payable under the head "medical expenses". Accordingly, the finding of the High Court in this regard is maintained.
19. This will bring us to the grievance of the appellant-claimant with regard to award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head "future treatment" and "pain and suffering". In view of the decisions of this Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another and Sanjay Batham vs. Munnalal Parihar and Other there can be no manner of doubt that the above two heads of compensation are distinct and different and cannot be clubbed together. We will, therefore, have to severe the two heads which have been clubbed together by the High Court.
Page 19 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined
20.In so far as "future treatment" is concerned we have no doubt that the claimant will be required to take treatment from time to time even to maintain the present condition of his health. In fact, the claimant in his deposition has stated that he is undergoing treatment at the Apollo Hospital at Delhi. Though it is not beyond our powers to award compensation beyond what has been claimed Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, in the facts of the present case we are of the view that the grant of full compensation, as claimed in the claim petition i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- under the head "future treatment", would meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, order accordingly.
21. The claimant had claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- under the head "pain and suffering and mental agony". Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant which had left him paralyzed for life and the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that the claimant is likely to suffer considerable pain throughout his life, we are of the view that the claimant should be awarded a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of "pain and suffering". We must, however, acknowledge that monetary compensation for pain and suffering is at best a palliative, the correct dose of which, in the last analysis, will have to be determined on a case to case basis.
22. In the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal the claimant has prayed for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- being the cost of attendant from the date of accident till he remains alive. The claimant in his deposition had stated that "he needs one person to be with him all the time". The aforesaid statement of the claimant is duly supported by the evidence of PW-1 who has described the medical condition of the claimant in detail. From the aforesaid materials, we are satisfied that the claim made on this count is justified and the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the claimant under the aforesaid head should be awarded in full. We order accordingly."
20. In the judgment Bhavik @ Bhavin Dwarkadas Vithlani vs. Ganpatsinh Manubha Jadeja (supra), the coordinate bench of this Court while dealing with the case of the claimant who has suffered paraplegia, referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdishchand reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 and awarded compensation under different heads as indicated in paragraph 14. Paragraphs 10 to 13 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
Page 20 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined "(10) With regard to the fixing of attendant charges the Apex Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has observed thus:
"25: Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic amount taken for determining at tendant charges is very much on the lower side. We must remember that this little girl is severely suffering from incontinence meaning that she does not have control over her bodily functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows older, she will not be able to handle her periods. She requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She requires an attendant who though may not be medically trained but must be capable of handling a child who is bed ridden. She would require an attendant who would ensure that she does not suffer from bed sores. The claimant has placed before us a notification of the State of Haryana of the year 2010, wherein the wages for skilled labourer is Rs.4846/ per month. We, therefore, assess the cost of one at tendant at Rs.5,000/ and she will require two attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/ per month, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/ per annum, and using the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs.21,60,000/ for attendant charges for her en tire life. This takes care of all the pecuniary damages."
(11) A perusal of the observations made by the Apex Court reveals that though there was no evidence adduced with regard to the attendant charges, the Apex Court has considered the notification of the State of Hariyana of 2010 with regard to the fixation of wages for workmen. The Apex Court has considered Rs.4,846/ p.m. of the skilled workman and accordingly fixed the expenses of two (02) attendants and accordingly has awarded Rs.21,60,000/.
(12) In the present case, it is accepted by both the sides that in the year 2010, the wages fixed by the State Government with regard to the skilled labourers was Rs.4,210/.The Physiotherapists, who were engaged for the treatment of the claimant are examined at Exh.48 and Exh.51. Dr.Dineshbhai Kanjibhai Gajera is examined at Exh.44. In his deposition he has stated that the claimant C/FA/2015/2018 JUDGMENT will permanently require the services of attendants and nursing in future. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ for attendant charges and special diet and transportation as Rs.1,00,000/ on the ground that the evidence with regard to their expenses/charges is not founded to be trustworthy. In the considered opinion of this Court, even if such evidence is not founded to be reliable, the fact of engaging the physiotherapists and attendant is proved and as per the parameter prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of Kajal (supra), the wages of attendants and physiotherapists can be fixed as per the norms fixed by the state government for the skilled labourers. Since the Page 21 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined exact wages are not proved before the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that looking to the wages of the skilled labourers, which is fixed by the State Government as Rs.4,210/, in the year 2010, it would be appropriate to fix the expense of Rs.3,500/ for physiotherapist(s) and Rs.2,500/ for attendant and Rs.1,000/ for special diet and transportation. The said expenses are rounded off as Rs.7,000/ per month which comes to Rs.84,000/ per annum. Using the multiplier of 18, the total amount works out to be Rs.15,12,000/. Thus, while meeting with the exigencies of the future attendant charges, accordingly the compensation towards the under the heads of attendant charges, special diet and transportation can be enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/ to Rs.15,00,000/. With regard to the compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/.
(13) In the present case, the claimant is of 22 years of age and has suffered 100% disability. In the considered opinion of this Court, looking to condition of the claimant who is in vegetative state, paralyzed and paraplegic and, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/ awarded towards the pain, shock and sufferings by the claims tribunal is too meager amount and hence, the same requires to be enhanced. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/ under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. It will be apposite to refer to the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Kajal (supra) with regard to the pain, suffering and loss of amenities.
"Pain, Suffering and Loss of amenities 26 Coming to the non pecuniary damages under the head of pain, suffering, loss of amenities, the High Court has awarded this girl only Rs.3,00,000/. In Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Ors., 2013 (10) SCALE 668 this Court while dealing with the issue of award under this head held that it should be at least Rs.6,00,000/ , if the disability is more than 90%. As far as the present case is concerned, in addition to the 100% physical disability the young girl is suffering from severe incontinence, she is suf fering from severe hysteria and above all she is left with a brain of a nine month old child. This is a case where departure has to be made from the normal rule and the pain and suffering suffered by this child is such that no amount of compensation can compensate.
(27) One factor which must be kept in mind while assessing the compensation in a case like the present one is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the courts or the tribunals assessing the compensation in a case Page 22 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding compensation. While awarding this amount we are not only taking the physical dis ability but also the mental disability and vari ous other factors. This child will remain bed ridden for life. Her mental age will be that of a nine month old child. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby. We are dealing with a girl who will physically become a woman but will mentally remain a 9 month old child. This girl will miss out playing with her friends. She cannot communicate; she cannot en joy the pleasures of life; she cannot even be amused by watching cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of childhood, the excitement of youth; the pleasures of a marital life; she can not have children who she can love let alone grandchildren.
She will have no pleasure. Her is a vegetable existence. Therefore, we feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case even after taking a very conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child should be at least Rs.15,00,000/ .
Loss of marriage prospects 28 The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/ for loss of marriage prospects. We see no reason to interfere with this finding."
Thus, the Apex Court has awarded Rs.15,000,00/ towards shock and suffering and Rs.3,00,000/ for loss of marriage prospects considering the vegetative condition and age of the girl. In the present case the claimant was 22 years aged unmarried boy when the accident had occurred. He would be unable to enjoy his youth, pleasure of marital life. He would not be having any child, he will also loose love of his grandchildren as he is in vegetative condition. The Apex Court has noted the decision in the case of Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited and Ors., 2013 (10) SCALE 668 in which the Apex Court while dealing with the issue of award under this head held that it should be at least Rs.6,00,000/ , if the disability is more than 90%. The claimant is 100% disabled in the present case and is in a vegetative stage. Hence, the amount awarded towards the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life by the Tribunal of Rs.2,00,000/ is disgraceful and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/. The loss of marriage prospects is further assessed as Rs.2,00,000/. Thus, the total compensations under the heads of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/ from Rs.2,00,000/ and for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life it is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/ from Rs.1,00,000/ as awarded by the Tribunal."
Page 23 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined
21. In the case at hand, the appellant in the year 2003 at the time of the accident was aged 50 years and 7 months (the date of birth being 01.06.1952); and he would be around 72 years old, today. For nearly 20 years he has remained bedridden and entirely dependent on others for some help, a condition that is permanent in nature. The freedom of physical movement is an invaluable gift to a human being and to restrict it would definitely have an impact on a person, driving him into depression or inferiority complex. The appellant, will have to incur expenses towards medical treatment. Moreover, considering the nature of disability the appellant will have to engage atleast one attendant to look after him. In the absence of any evidence, it would be appropriate to allow the attendant charges as per the prevalent minimum wages. On the top of it, the appellant has also suffered loss of amenities, considering the fact that his mobility has been restricted and hence, would be unable to cherish the pleasures of social and family life. While, the predicament of the appellant cannot be fully compensated in terms of money but, reasonable compensation under different heads would atleast provide some measure of solace. Owing to the accident, the appellant has suffered loss of future income and 13 multiplier should have been applied instead of 5. Moreover, considering the age of the appellant, 15% future prospective rise in income ought to have been allowed as the appellant was a salaried person. Loss of amenities has not been considered at all. Besides, the compensation under different heads namely attendant charges, transportation charges, mental pain, shock and suffering are on a lower side. Therefore, on overall Page 24 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined consideration of evidence, the Tribunal was not right in awarding Rs.8,63,470/-.
22. In view of the above discussion that has preceded, we hold that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation and modify the amount of compensation as per the calculation set out in the below tabulated form:
Particulars Amount (in
Rs.)
Income 17,909/-
Future prospective rise 15%
17,909/- +
2686.35/-
(15%)
=20,595.35/-
per month
Multiplier 13
Total future loss of income 20,595.35/-
*12*13 =
32,12,874.6/-
Actual loss of income 94,742/-
Future Treatment 2,00,000/-
Pain, suffering and mental 2,00,000/-
agony
Loss of amenities and 2,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
Cost of attendant (as per
prevalent minimum wages
and applying multiplier of 3,45,000/-
Page 25 of 31
Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
undefined
13)
Rs.2,200/-*12*13=3,43,200/-
(Rounded off to
Rs.3,45,000/-)
Total 42,52,616.6/-
23. Needless to clarify that the amount already awarded shall be suitably deducted from the above calculation and the differential amount to be deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. In view of the enhancement, we do not deem it appropriate to modify the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal i.e. 7.5% from the date of application to the date of payment which, also will be payable on the enhanced amount of compensation. The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.
24. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
FURTHER ORDER
25. The captioned appeal was listed for pronouncement of the judgment on 27.01.2026. As this Court, desired to have a virtual meeting with the claimant, the learned advocate had expressed his inability as he is neither in contact with the appellant nor their counter part. This Court, therefore, passed an order requesting the Gujarat State Legal Services Page 26 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined Authority to trace out the details of the appellants/claimants and facilitate the virtual meeting with the Court. It was on 03.02.2026, informed that the appellant-claimant has passed away in the year-2015 i.e. on 23.08.2015. This was an unpleasant event with which the court was confronted with. With a view to seeing that the heirs are brought on record, time was provided to the learned advocate for the appellant to join the heirs. Application was preferred, which was allowed and the heirs have now been brought on the record. Therefore, owing to the development, which took place in the interregnum, the consideration for the determination of the calculation, has changed.
26. While making further submissions, Mr. Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon and Another reported in (2022) 13 SCC 494. It is submitted that loss of estate would include the expenditure on the medicines, treatment, attendant, diet, doctor's fee etc., including the income and future prospects, which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate. Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned advocate with Mr.Digvijaysinh Bisht, learned advocate, has though raised the objection, which, in the opinion of this Court, in view of the said judgment, does not deserve to be accepted.
27. In the cited case, the Apex Court surveyed various judgments. Paragraphs 15 to 19, for ready reference are reproduced hereinbelow:
Page 27 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined "15. The view taken in Kanamma (supra) and Uttam Kumar (supra) that the claim would abate is based on a narrow interpretation of the Act which does not commend to us. The reasoning of the Gujarat High Court is more in consonance with aim, purpose and spirit of the Act and furthers its real intent and purpose which we therefore approve.
16. The injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident required prolonged hospitalization for six months. The extent of disability suffered was assessed on 16.06.2000 as 100%. The extent of disability, pursuant to physiotherapy was reassessed as 75% on 08.08.2002. In the interregnum, the injured resigned his job on 30.09.2001 at the age of 53 years as he found movement difficult and inconvenient without an attendant as distinct from complete immobility.
The injured was possessing professional qualifications in labour laws and Industrial relations along with a Diploma in Personnel Management. He may have had to suffer some handicap in also practicing before the labour court, but cannot be held to have suffered 100% physical disability as his capacity for rendering advisory and other work coupled with movement on a wheel chair with the aid of an attendant could still facilitate a reduced earning capacity. It cannot be held that the injured was completely left with no source of livelihood except to deplete his estate. In assessing, what has been described as a 'Just Compensation' under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind.
17. The Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability and granted a measly compensation of Rupees one lakh only by a cryptic order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.
18. In Parminder Singh (supra) compensation on the basis of complete loss of income, the percentage of disability, future prospects were granted applying the relevant multiplier. Again, in Kajal (supra) the injured was assessed as 100 per cent disabled, considering all of which compensation was awarded on the notional future prospects along with relevant multiplier. The loss of income to the injured in the facts of the present case has to be assessed at 75%. In view of Raj Kumar (supra) there shall be no deduction towards personal expenses.
Page 28 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined
19. We see no reason to deviate from the consistent judicial view taken by more than one High Court that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased."
28. In view of the above, this Court has re-determined the compensation taking the income at Rs.17,909/-, allowed 15% future prospective rise and considered the multiplier of 13. According to this Court, the total future loss of income would be Rs.32,12,820/-. The amount towards actual loss of income would be Rs.94,742. Cost of attendant as per prevalent minimum wages and applying multiplier of 12, the amount would be Rs.3,16,800/-, the same is rounded off to Rs.3,17,000/-. In the absence of any evidence produced for medical expenses and transportation, this Court deems it appropriate to award lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The total amount would be Rs.37,24,562/-.
29. In view of the above discussion that has preceded, we hold that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation and modify the amount of compensation as per the calculation set out in the below tabulated form:
Particulars Amount (in
Rs.)
Income 17,909/-
Future prospective rise 15%
Page 29 of 31
Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026
undefined
17,909/- +
2686.35/-
(15%)
=20,595.35/-
per month
Multiplier 13
Total future loss of income 20,595/-*12*13
= 32,12,820/-
Actual loss of income 94,742/-
Cost of attendant (as per
prevalent minimum wages
and applying multiplier of 3,17,000/-
13)
Rs.2,200/-*12*12=3,16,800/-
(Rounded off to Rs.3,17,000/-)
Medical Expense and 1,00,000/-
Transportation
Total 37,24,562/-
*For Cost of Attendant, multiplier of 12 is applied considering the fact that the claimant passed away on 23.08.2015.
30. Needless to clarify that the amount already awarded shall be suitably deducted from the above calculation and the differential amount to be deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. In view of the enhancement, we do not deem it appropriate to modify the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal i.e. 7.5% from the date of application to the date of payment which, Page 30 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3613/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/03/2026 undefined also will be payable on the enhanced amount of compensation. Upon deposit of the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation, the Tribunal is at liberty to disburse the entire amount of compensation in favour of the legal heirs of the original claimant after due and proper verification.
31. The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.
32. Records and proceedings, be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SINDHU NAIR Page 31 of 31 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 20 22:09:38 IST 2026