Court Enhances Motor-accident Compensation and Directs Insurer To Pay Additional Rs.1.03 Lakh

A bench of Honourable Mr. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar heard First Appeal No. 3919 of 2023 challenging the quantum awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar in MAC No. 362 of 2013. The appeal arose from a claim for compensation by an injured pillion-rider who was involved in a collision on 10.01.2012; Mr. Hemal Shah appeared on behalf of Mr. D.G. Rana for the appellant while Ms. K.S. Pathak represented the insurer.

The High Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from Rs.2,30,460 to Rs.3,33,461, directing the respondent insurer to deposit an additional Rs.1,03,001 with proportionate costs and interest within four weeks. The Court reassessed the claimant’s monthly income at Rs.4,570 as per prevailing minimum wages and awarded a 40% addition for future prospects. The Court accepted a consensual 22% disability and applied a multiplier of 16. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record then Tribunal has to consider prevailing rate of minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the claimant. In the present case the accident was occurred on 10.01.2012 and during that time the appellant – injured was seller of newspaper and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.4,000/- per month, however, as per the minimum wages of prevalent time the income is required to be enhanced and the same is reassessed at Rs.4,570/- per month.” The Court further noted that the Tribunal had “committed gross error by not considering any addition towards future prospectus” and held that “40% addition towards future prospectus is required to be awarded.”

Background The appellant, a newspaper seller and pillion rider on a motorcycle, sustained injuries when a Maruti car struck the motorcycle from behind on 10.01.2012. He filed MAC No. 362 of 2013 seeking compensation; the Tribunal partly allowed the petition and assessed monthly income at Rs.4,000, awarded amounts for future loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering and attendant charges, arriving at Rs.2,30,460.

On appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant contended that the Tribunal ought to have assessed income in accordance with prevailing minimum wages, awarded addition for future prospects and enhanced non-pecuniary damages. The insurer argued that injuries were minor, the claimant’s income had increased after the accident, and thus no future prospectus addition or actual loss of income was warranted.

The High Court applied authority in Govind Yadav (on use of minimum wages where income proof was lacking), Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain (on entitlement to future prospect notwithstanding subsequent income increase) and Pranay Sethi (on awarding future prospects), and followed Sarla Verma for multiplier application. The Court reassessed the claimant’s monthly income at Rs.4,570, applied a 40% future prospects uplift (Rs.1,828), calculated the annualized future loss using multiplier 16 and 22% disability, and determined an enhanced future loss of income of Rs.2,70,251 (increasing the Tribunal’s figure by Rs.1,01,291). The Court also increased actual loss of income from Rs.12,000 to Rs.13,710 and left other heads (medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges) unaltered. The Court directed the insurer to deposit the additional amount with interest within four weeks, remitted records to the Tribunal, and directed recovery of deficit court fees on the enhanced amount. Interim applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: C/FA/3919/2023 (R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3919 of 2023); Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:11620; Judgment dated: 13/02/2026 Case Title: Bharatbhai Rameshwar Lot Versus Ratanlal Shyamlal Kol & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Devendra G. Rana, Advocate; Mr. Hemal Shah, Advocate (appeared) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Kirti S. Pathak, Advocate (for Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company); Mr. Arif A. Shekh, Advocate (for Defendant No.3); Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, Advocate (for Defendant No.4); Defendant No.1: Unserved/Expired.