Aabedaben Isabkhan Bihari vs Hebatkhan Bajitkhan

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Guj) 263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J.
Aabedaben Isabkhan Bihari - Appellant
Versus
Hebatkhan Bajitkhan & Ors. – Respondents
R/First Appeal No. 2590 of 2014
Decided On : 17-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Girish K. Patel.
For the Defendants : Mr. Himansu M. Padhya, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, Mr. VC Thomas, Rule Served.

Important Points

Functional disability assessment must be occupation-specific rather than a mechanical adoption of bodily impairment percentages; where injuries render a claimant incapable of performing their vocational duties, compensation must be calculated based on the total loss of earning capacity.

Subject

Motor Accident Claims - Compensation and Quantum

Headnote

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 168 and 173 - Motor accident - Quantum of compensation - Enhancement - Functional disabilityAssessment of - Permanent disability to a limb does not always correspond to functional disability of body - Tribunal must assess impact on specific occupation of claimant - Amputation of dominant hand for a person involved in skilled manual labor impacts earning capacity significantly, justifying a higher percentage of functional disability - Future prospects must be added at appropriate percentages based on age of claimant as per established legal principles. (Paras 4.1, 9, 10)

(B) Compensation - Ambit - Assessment under heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and medical expenses must take into account nature of injuries and resultant loss of quality of life - Where injury causes total loss of capacity to perform professional tasks, functional disability should be assessed corresponding to that loss rather than mechanically calculating physical impairment percentage. (Paras 11, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a skilled worker, suffered severe injuries including a crushed limb due to a vehicular accident, resulting in an amputation. The initial award by the lower authority was challenged on grounds of inadequate assessment of monthly income, failure to account for future prospects, and incorrect determination of functional disability which failed to recognize total loss of earning capacity in the claimant's specific trade.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the income assessment was conservative and lacked sufficient evidentiary basis, necessitating an upward revision. The court found that the physical disability resulted in 100% functional impairment for the claimant's specific occupation. The award was enhanced under heads of future income, loss of amenities, and pain and suffering, while recognizing that compensatory interest should apply to the additional amount granted.

Issues: Whether the assessment of functional disability was erroneously computed mechanically and whether the compensation awarded for income and non-pecuniary losses was just and reasonable given the severity of the permanent injury sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Functional disability must be assessed based on the injured person's ability to continue their profession, not just the physical impairment certificate. If an injury rendered the claimant entirely incapable of performing their trade, the functional disability constitutes total loss of earning capacity, justifying enhanced compensation.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; additional compensation awarded with interest.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of the motor accident claim. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments concerning income assessment, disability percentage, and liability. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. judicial reassessment of income and functional disability for compensation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. final calculation of enhanced compensation and liability apportionment. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J.

1. Captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 11.03.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha District, At Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.858 of 1999, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,78,440/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on 05.11.1999, claimant- Aabedaben Isabkhan Bihari was travelling in a Jeep bearing registration No.GRX-5490 and going to Village- Dalvana. When they reached at the place of accident, in the meantime, one truck bearing registration No.GJ-8-U-1028 came from opposite side at an excessive speed and dashed with the said Jeep from the driver side. As a result of the accident, the said Jeep turned turtle and Aabedaben Isabkhan Bihari sustained grievous injuries.

2.1. Having been served with the notice of claim petition, the opponent No.3 & 6 -Insurance Companies appeared and filed their Written Statements vide Exhibits-43 & 44 respectively, thereby denying the contents of the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

2.2. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exhibit-19, for determination.

“1. Whether the applicant proves that the injuries were caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No.GJ-8-U-1028 & Jeep No.GRX-5490 by the driver of the vehicles?

2. What amount of compensation is awardable to the applicants?

3. Which of the opponents are liable and to what extent?

4. What order?”

2.3. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, oral as well as documentary evidence on record and the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,78,440/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 2.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimant/appellant-herein preferred the captioned appeal on the ground of quantum.

3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4. Mr. Girish K. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant/appellant-herein, vehemently submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 35 years and she was gainfully engaged in tailoring work and thereby earning a substantial amount. However, the learned Tribunal had considered the monthly income of the claimant/appellant at Rs.1,800/-. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the claimant/appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case Lata Wadhwa and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Ors. , reported in AIR 2001 SC 3218. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 35 years, however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the claimant. He further submitted that 40% of the income ought to have been added on account of future prospects of the claimant. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sidram Versus