Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Jayeshbhai Mavjibhai Harsoda on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 220 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
JAYESHBHAI MAVJIBHAI HARSODA & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant - insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 6 th September 2021, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and 12 th Additional District Judge, Dhoraji at Rajkot in MACP no.62 of 2017. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has Page 1 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present respondent nos.1 and 2 - original claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding them entitled to recover an amount of compensation of Rs.13,68,000/- from the original opponents, jointly and severally, with running interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization and cost.
2. The present appeal was notified for admission hearing on 16th February, 2022 and considering the grounds raised by the appellant - insurance company in the present appeal, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajaykumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 342, more particularly as observed in paragraph-6, noticing the challenge of the appellant - insurance company on the issue of future prospects vis-a-vis the disability sustained, this Court had admitted the appeal. In an application seeking stay, preferred by the appellant - insurance company, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal was stayed on condition of deposit of the entire award amount. Subsequently, by order dated 8 th June, 2022, this Court has disposed application for stay with Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined directions of release of 30% of the deposited award amount in favour of the original claimants and 70% was directed to be invested in the fixed deposit in the name of the claimants with any nationalized bank, initially for a period of 5 years, which was directed to be renewed from time to time pending the appeal. The interest which was to accrue on such fixed deposit was permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimants. The present appeal being notified for final hearing, was finally heard with the assistance of learned advocates on record.
3. Mr. Chirayu A. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - insurance company, has assailed the impugned judgment and award, firstly on the issue of negligence. Learned advocate has disputed the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal holding the driver of the Eicher Matador and insured vehicle solely negligent towards the occurrence of accident. Inviting my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, learned advocate has pointed-out that though it has been noted by the Tribunal that in cross-examination, the claimant has admitted the fact that he was not wearing helmet, the Tribunal has ignored the Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined aforesaid lapse of the original claimant. He has therefore assailed the findings of the Tribunal on issue of negligence as according to him, the claimant was contributory negligent to the extent of 30%.
3.1 Learned advocate had referred to and relied upon the FIR produced on record at Exh.23 read with the Panchnama produced on record at Exh.24, wherein it is clearly evident that the accident had occurred on account of head to head collision between two vehicles involved. In fact, at one stage the Tribunal has observed while deciding the issue of negligence, the appellant - insurance company had admitted the fact that there was a head on collision between the Eicher Matador and the motorcycle. He has therefore submitted that the Tribunal could have considered attributing 50% negligency to drivers of the respective vehicles involved. 3.2 Learned advocate had further submitted that the Tribunal has observed that no evidence has been led by the original opponents in rebuttal against the documentary evidences like FIR, Panchnama and therefore has held the driver of the Eicher Matador negligent towards occurrence of Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined accident. Thus, the Tribunal while arriving at such a conclusion has held that there was no contributory negligence on part of the injured. The Tribunal misinterpreted the legal principles as referred to and relied upon, in the facts of the case.
3.3 Learned advocate has also assailed the impugned judgment and award on the issue of quantum of compensation being determined on the higher side. At the outset, the learned advocate has fairly submitted that the physical disability of the claimant is not in dispute as being admitted in view of the consent given by learned advocate for the insurance company on record before the Tribunal. In present appeal, thus the limited challenge is made to the future loss of income mainly on the ground that income is being determined on the higher side and future prospects being not established. 3.4 It was submitted that though the income tax returns for Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2016-17 has been produced on record for the purpose of determining the income of the claimant, however, the Tribunal committed grave error in considering the average of the gross income of the aforesaid Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined assessment years for the purpose of determining the income of the claimant on the date of accident.
3.5 Learned advocate had invited my attention to the defence raised by the appellant - insurance company before the Tribunal and has submitted that in cross-examination the appellant - insurance company has challenged the aforesaid income of the claimant by calling upon him to produce on record the corroborative documents in the nature of books of accounts, bank statements, etc. The original claimant having failed to produce further corroborative material on record, the Tribunal ought not to have treated the ITRs to be the absolute proof of the income of the claimant.
3.6 Learned advocate had also assailed the impugned judgment and award on the ground of future prospects being wrongly considered in the facts of the case as there is no iota of evidence to suggest that there is loss of earning because of accidental injuries, except for the oral deposition of the claimant. He had further pointed-out that no documentary evidence has been brought on record regarding his job work being affected after sustaining accidental injuries. Learned Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined advocate had expressed that as an insurance company, it is difficult to rebuttal evidence in such kinds of circumstances. 3.7 In support of his submission, learned advocate had placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vibhor Fialok and Anr. order dated 18th February, 2025 passed in Civil Appeal no.1337 and 1338 of 2019. Referring to paragraph-10 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar (supra), as quoted in the said decision , learned advocate had submitted that the Tribunal was first required to examine as to whether there was permanent disability and thereafter was required to determine as to in what manner the said disability has affected the future earning capacity. Applying the aforesaid legal principles the Tribunal was expected to verify regarding the activities of the claimant being carried-out in spite of permanent disability and the difficulties faced by the claimant in doing the activities as a result of permanent disability for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life. Secondly, the Tribunal was to ascertain his vocation and profession and nature of work before the Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined accident as also his age. Thirdly, the Tribunal was to ascertain whether the claimant was totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions which he was effectively carrying on. Lastly, as to whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
3.8 Referring to the aforesaid criterias laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Rajkumar (supra), the learned advocate had submitted that none of the aforesaid factors have been verified by the Tribunal before considering the amount of compensation towards loss of future earning capacity. Learned advocate had further submitted that considering the aforesaid parameters in the facts of the case, indisputably, the claimant having sustained disability to the extent of 23% of body as a whole, in absence of any further evidence being brought on record with regard to loss of earning capacity, despite being cross-examined on the Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined aforesaid issues, the Tribunal ought not to have considered, awarding future prospects.
4. Per contra, vehemently objecting to the aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1 - original claimant has mainly placed reliance upon the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal. However, in order to meet with the aforesaid contentions, learned advocate had independently satisfied each of these issues by referring to and relying upon the evidence on record and the settled legal principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4.1 On the issue of negligency, learned advocate had submitted that on close inspection of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, it is apparent that no rebuttal evidence has been led by the appellant - insurance company against the cogent material in the nature of FIR, Panchnama and medical case papers being produced on record, which clearly establishes the sole negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle of the appellant towards the occurrence of Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined accident. It was submitted that the driver of the Eicher matador had come on the wrong side of the road and had hit the claimant who was driving the motorcycle on the right side with moderate speed. According to him, noticing the aforesaid material on record, the Tribunal has rightly not considered the defence of the insurance company about not wearing of protective headgear by the claimant for considering contributory negligent. Even otherwise, on appreciation of the aforesaid evidence on record and the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, merely because the injured claimant was not wearing protective headgear at the time of the accident, the Court was not required to presume that there was contributory negligency on the part of the person who was not wearing helmet. He has therefore submitted that in absence of any casual connection being established between the alleged violation and the occurrence of accident, the Tribunal has rightly not considered the issue of contributory negligence.
4.2 As regards the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned advocate had vehemently submitted that on bare comparison of the Income Tax Returns of Assessment Year Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined 2011-12 to Assessment Year 2016-17, it is evident that right from inception of starting of business of job work of repairing machines, initially there was stagnation in the gross income of the claimant for initial three years, and gradually after three years, there was steep rise in the gross income of the claimant for continuous two years. It was further submitted that in the relevant Assessment Year of 2016-17, i.e. at the time of accident, there was fall in the aforesaid steep rise in the gross income of the claimant. Thus, learned advocate had submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered average of the aforesaid gross incomes of the respective assessment years, while determining the income of the claimant for the purpose of future loss of income.
4.3 On the issue of future prospects, learned advocate has submitted that in absence of any dispute being raised with regard to disability sustained by the claimant due to accidental injuries, having consented, the Tribunal had proceeded to consider the loss of future earning capacity. The income being established by leading cogent evidence in the nature of Income Tax Returns produced on record and the physical disability being not disputed, in the facts of the case Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined where the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the nature of fracture of left elbow and fracture in left leg below knee, the Tribunal had rightly considered the determination of loss of future earning capacity of the claimant. 4.4 Responding to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company regarding no evidence worth being produced on record to establish actual future loss of income because of vehicular accident, learned advocate has demonstrated comparative analysis of the gross income of the claimant as reflected in the income tax returns from Assessment Year 2011-12 to Assessment Year 2016-17. He has submitted that though on bare comparison, the difference between the gross income of Assessment Year 2016-17 and Assessment Year 2015-16 is hardly of Rs.3,000/-, however, the fact remains that because of the accidental injuries, the steep rise in the gross income of the claimant as noticed in the previous year has not continued in the relevant Assessment Year 2016-17. In such circumstances, the Income Tax Returns being statutory document has rightly been considered to be a proof of income and the same may be Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined considered for the purpose of appreciating the issue of future prospects as well.
4.5 Learned advocate had submitted that even in case where the income had increased after the accident trauma, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the future prospects of the injured claimant by giving broad meaning of the term 'future prospects' as the same is attributed to multiple other factors. The reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer Vs. Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2023 ACJ SC 1. Learned advocate have therefore submitted that the award is just and proper.
5. Distinguishing the case of Vibhor Fialok (supra), it was submitted that noticing the background of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also noted that the claimant was running a textile unit and therefore, the personal injuries of the claimant shall have no bearing insofar as the future income of the claimant is concerned. Thus, in the background of the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deemed it fit to not to consider future prospects. Learned advocate Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined had therefore submitted that the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the peculiar facts of the case may not be treated as precedent in the present case inasmuch as the disability sustained by the claimant has admittedly been consented by the appellant - insurance company before the Tribunal. Considering the aforesaid consent, the medical expert was not examined as witness by the claimant. He has therefore urged this Court not to interfere with the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal on the issue of future prospects as well.
6. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the disability of the claimant since having consented by the counterpart before the Tribunal. The only question which he is raising before this Court is whether there is any loss of future prospects in the facts of the case, more particularly in absence of any evidence in this regard being brought on record by the claimant. He has reiterated the fact that the claimant was engaged in doing job work of repairing machine for which in his evidence, it has been clearly brought on record that he used to engage workers. Thus, it can be Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined inferred that the claimant himself was not personally attending the physical work of repairing machine; merely because in his cross-examination, he has stated that the unit is closed itself is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the claimant has sustained loss of future earning capacity due to accidental injuries.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the extensive submissions made by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties on record. I have carefully gone through the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal on the issues raised in light of the original record and proceedings which is placed for consideration with the present appeal. The only question arises for consideration of this court in the present appeal is as to whether the tribunal committed any grave error in facts and/or in law, in passing the impugned judgment and award in a claim petition preferred by the applicants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 holding the present appellant - original opponent insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.13,68,000/- with interest and cost ?
Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined
8. On the issue of negligence, on careful consideration of the documentary evidence including the copy of the FIR at Exh.23, the copy of panchnama of scene of accident at Exh.24 in light of the evidence of the original claimant who has entered the witness box and has been cross examined at Exh.21, in absence of any rebuttal of the aforesaid evidence on record at the instance of appellant - insurance company, it is clearly evident that the driver of the Eicher matador - the insured vehicle of the appellant was coming from the wrong side and was driven in rash and negligent manner, which had resulted into the accident with the motor cycle driven by the original claimant, which was going on its correct side. Looking at the panchnama of the scene of the accident, the damage sustained by the respective vehicles is self explanatory about the speed of the Eicher matador and its impact on the motorcycle. Considering the principles of maxim res ipsa loquitor, this court can always raise the presumption that failure on part of the driver to take reasonable care by entering into the wrong direction has led to causation of accident resulting into injuries to the claimant. Thus, in light of the aforesaid evidence on record, in the opinion of this Court, no error can be found with the conclusion arrived upon Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined by the Tribunal holding the driver of the Eicher Matador - insured vehicle of the appellant solely negligent towards the occurrence of accident.
9. As regards the issue of contributory negligence of the claimant towards the occurrence of accident is concerned, merely because the claimant had not worn the protected headgear was not sufficient to conclude that the claimant had also contributed to the occurrence of accident. As rightly relied upon by the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Siddiqui ( supra) has clearly held that simply because there was a violation of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act by a victim in an accident, there is no presumption that there was a contributory negligence on part of the person, who was not wearing the helmet. Thus, the issue of negligence as disputed by the appellant - insurance company is not well-founded and is hereby rejected.
10. This brings me to the issue of the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. Considering the arguments canvassed by learned advocate appearing for the respective parties, the challenge is essentially on the ground Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined that the income of the claimant has been determined on higher side, despite the fact that there was rise in the income of the deceased during the relevant assessment period, 2016- 17 and secondly, the future prospects has been wrongly considered for the purpose of awarding amount of compensation towards the loss of future earning capacity of the claimant. It is well-settled principles of law that in cases related to motor accident, the Tribunals/Courts can consider the Income Tax Returns as credible evidence for the purpose of computing the income of the claimant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malhar Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 228 and in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sonigraj Juhi Uttamchand reported in (2025) 3 SCC 23, has held the Income Tax Returns to be credible evidence in order to determine the income of the claimant. On careful consideration of the aforesaid evidence brought on record by the claimant, in absence of any rebuttal of the aforesaid evidence or any contradictions being pointed-out by the respondent, there is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid Income Tax Returns being statutory document, as proof of income of the claimant. As regards the approach of Tribunal Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined in considering the aforesaid credible evidence for assessment of the income of the claimant is concerned, as rightly pointed- out by learned advocate for the respondent - original claimant, a comparative analysis of the gross income of the Income Tax Returns of the claimant for the Assessment Year 2011-12 to Assessment Year 2016-17, it can be gathered that at the initial stage of starting of the business of job work of machine repairing, the claimant had struggled to secure income which was confined to Rs.1,75,712/- (Assessment Year 2011-12), Rs.1,73,649/- (Assessment Year 2012-13) and Rs.1,84,516/- (Assessment Year 2013-14). It can be inferred that later on the claimant had settled in his aforesaid business as is evident from the rise in the gross income being noticed in the subsequent two years i.e. Rs.2,40,656/- (Assessment Year 2014-15) and Rs.2,90,835 (Assessment Year 2015-16). On comparative analysis of the aforesaid data of gross income of the claimant, it can be inferred that there was steep rise in the preceding two assessment years of the occurrence of accident, as compared to the initial three assessment years which comes to around 65% of the average income of the initial three years. As against the aforesaid steep rise of income of the preceding two assessment years of the Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined occurrence of the accident, there was fall in the income of the claimant inasmuch gross income of the claimant for A.Y. 2016- 17 was reported as Rs.2,87,652/-, which is Rs.3,000/- less as compared to the gross income for A.Y. 2015-16, which is Rs.2,90,835/-. With such evidence being brought on record, the Tribunal in its wisdom has applied the method of considering the average of the aforesaid gross income for different assessment years, in order to determine the nearest possible figure of the income of the claimant to compensate for the loss of future earning capacity. In my view, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in making an assessment of the income by considering the average of the gross income of the different assessment years. More particularly, when the gross income of the claimant varies.
11. As regards the issue of future prospects is concerned, appropriate would be to first consider the judgment relied upon by counsel for appellant insurance company in case of Vibhor Fialok (supra) is concerned. the facts suggests that the disability of the injured was highly disputed. The corporation approached in appeal before the High Court challenging their liability and seeking reduction in the Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined compensation and cross appeal was also filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. The High Court in the appeal, noted that the testimony of the doctor and the disability certificate suggests 48% disability with regard to right lower limb of the claimant which had remained unchallenged and therefore considering the aforesaid disability, the Tribunal had further considered future prospects of 40% as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Shethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. In the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the corporation had assailed the aforesaid judgment and award in the Supreme Court by contending that the High Court erred in awarding the future prospects to the injured claimant when the injured claimant owns his own textile company and therefore there was no future loss suffered by the claimant. 11.1. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the original claimant had supported the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Upon appreciation of the order passed by the Tribunal as well as High Court noticed that neither of the Courts have examined Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined the issue of future prospects in light of the functional disability and therefore proceeded to reconsider the issue of future prospects and the percentage of disability sustained by the original claimant. In the process, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering its earlier decisions on the issue of functional disability, by appreciating the evidence of the doctor, the assessed the functional disability of the claimant to the extent of 40% of right lower limb. Noticing the fact that the disability to the part of a body i.e. right lower limb attributes to one-fourth of the body as a whole, the permanent disability was determined as 12% of body as a whole accordingly. The Court in the facts of the case and evidence on record held that there was no justification to arrive at the conclusion that claimant had suffered loss of future prospects considering his vocation corresponding functional disability of the right lower limb disability. The Court thus observed :
"Thus, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the affected impact of such disability on the earning capacity of the claimant. In the instant case, the tribunal as well as the High Court has arrived at a conclusion that there is permanent functional disability. However, it is not forthcoming from the award of the tribunal or the impugned judgment as to the corresponding functional disability. There may be case of whether the disability is permanent or temporary also. If the disablement Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body i.e. the permanent disability suffered by the person will have to be assessed/reconsidered for the purposes of computation of compensation towards loss of future income."
Thus, it can be discern from the above observations that the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend on the impact of such disability on the earning capacity of the claimant.
12. Keeping in mind aforesaid principles and applying same in facts of the case, it would be required to noted that before the Tribunal, the appellant - insurance company has not disputed the physical disability being sustained by the claimant because of the accidental injuries. It is evident from the record that the disability certificate produced on record at Exh.30 was issued by an orthopedic doctor. From the medical certificate, it is discernible that the claimant was operated and surgery was performed on him while he was admitted in hospital from 18th July, 2017 to 22nd July, 2017. The doctor has certified the fact of claimant having sustained fracture of tibia as well as fracture of left radical head. The doctor has also opined that fracture of left lateral tibia condyle and left Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined radical head. The screws were fixed in the lateral tibia condyle and stable fixtures followed by closure was done by applying slab. The claimant was advised physiotherapy. The corroborative material in the nature of the X-ray report has been produced on record at Exh.35. The disability certificate dated 1st April, 2021 produced on record at Exh.65 is issued by Dr. Deepak R. Langalia, who is MS Ortho. On examination of the claimant, the medical expert has noted the aforesaid injuries as evident on the lower extremity and the related difficulties on evaluation of the movements of the left knee and the elbow of the claimant, the said doctor has opined that he is unable to attend hard work. He also finds difficulty in climbing stairs and sitting cross-legged and squatting is possible, however, it is painful and restricted. The doctor has also noticed that the claimant is unable to fast walk or run. The other complication which is noted by the medical officer is limping with pain in the valgus of the knee. As regards the upper limb, the medical expert has noticed the difficulty of the claimant in lifting the weight and the painful and restricted movement at the knee joints and elbow region which hinders his routine work. On overall assessment of the afforested factors, the medical expert has followed the Kessler's formula Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined and has assessed the permanent partial disability of left lower extremity to the extent of 36% and left upper extremity to the extent of 20% only. As is evident from the purshis tendered before the Tribunal at Exh.50, with the consent of learned advocates appearing on record for the claimant as well as for the insurance company, the disability sustained by the original claimant due to accidental injuries has been admitted. As regards the vocation of the claimant of doing job work of repairing machines, on close evaluation of the evidence of the claimant, it can be inferred that the claimant was attending the work of repairing machines with the aid of the workers. In my view, noticing the major impact caused on the elbow joint and knee joint due to accidental injuries, it has certainly affected the functional capacity of the claimant to attend work repairing machines. It has also transpired in his cross- examination that the aforesaid firm is closed. In such circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the future prospects of the claimant has certainly been affected noticing the decline in the steep rise in the income of the claimant, as evident from the comparative analysis of the gross income of the preceding assessment year as compared to the relevant assessment years.
Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined
13. Having held so, as rightly pointed-out by the learned advocate for the respondent - claimant, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohammad Sabeer (supra), merely because there was difference of Rs.3,000/- in the gross income of the claimant for the relevant A.Y. as compared to the preceding A.Y., it would not be enough material to draw a conclusion that the claimant has not sustained any future loss of income or the future prospect is not required to be considered. Having noted the complications, which have arisen after the accidental injuries, it can be inferred that the claimant would not be in a position to attend the work which he otherwise used to do prior to occurrence of the accident.
14. In light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Shethi (supra), considering the age of the claimant to be 35 years at the time of accident, this Court is inclined to uphold the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal by considering future prospects at the rate of 40% for the purpose of determination of loss of future earning capacity of the claimant. On overall consideration of the evidence on record , in my view the Tribunal has awarded just Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/220/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined and proper compensation which does not call for any interference in present appeal.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award dated 6th September 2021, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and 12th Additional District Judge, Dhoraji at Rajkot in MACP no.62 of 2017 is hereby confirmed.
16. The R. & P. are directed to be sent back forthwith to the concerned Tribunal along with writ of this order. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed with the release and disbursement of the award amount, at the end of maturity of the Fixed Deposit, which is lying with the Nazir of the concerned Tribunal in favour of the claimant/s subject to due verification and strictly in terms of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. With these observations, first appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...sfs/18.09/23.09 Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 00:00:21 IST 2025