The Gujarat High Court has partly allowed a motor accident compensation appeal, enhancing the overall award while decisively holding that tribunals must assess functional disability linked to earning capacity and not mechanically apply medical disability percentages.

Case Background and Tribunal Award

The claimant suffered injuries in a road accident on 12 February 2016 when her Activa scooter was hit from behind by a Honda car driven rashly near Gorwa, Vadodara.

She sustained fractures to her lower limbs and a nasal bone fracture and was hospitalised twice.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara, by its award dated 23 June 2023, granted total compensation of ₹9,26,500.

Dissatisfied, the claimant approached the High Court seeking enhancement, reassessment of income, and acceptance of a higher disability percentage.

Income Assessment and Future Prospects

The Tribunal had assessed the claimant’s income at ₹5,000 per month. The High Court found this to be erroneous, noting that although a 2013 salary certificate was produced, the accident occurred in 2016.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that prevailing minimum wages must be applied and observed:

“The learned Tribunal ought to have considered prevailing rate of minimum wages… therefore income of the claimant is required to be reassessed as Rs.7,800/- per month.”

The Court further held that future prospects were wrongly ignored and added 40%, observing that:

“This Court is of the view that 40% addition towards future prospects is required to be considered.”

Accordingly, the monthly income was reassessed at ₹10,920.

Core Legal Issue

The most significant issue concerned disability.

The treating doctor had issued a certificate opining 86.5% permanent disability, combining lower limb disability and facial disfigurement. The Tribunal reduced this to 43.25% without detailed reasoning.

The High Court strongly disapproved this approach, reiterating settled law that medical disability cannot be equated with functional disability.

Quoting extensively from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the Court emphasised:

“The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity.”

It further reminded that:

“What requires to be assessed… is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured.”

Medical Board Reassessment and Its Evidentiary Value

On the objection of the insurance company, and with the consent of both parties, the claimant was referred to the Medical Board of Sir Sayajirao General Hospital, Vadodara.

The Board assessed 27% permanent physical disability of both lower limbs.

The High Court accepted this assessment, holding that:

“The opinion of the Medical Experts should not be discarded and that too when the panel of four expert Doctors have opined about the disablement.”

Rejecting the plea for remand and fresh cross-examination, the Court observed that sufficient reliable evidence was already on record and relied on Supreme Court directions that Medical Board certificates can be accepted unless suspicious.

Rejection of Facial Disfigurement as Functional Disability

The claimant argued that facial disfigurement should be factored into disability and compensation.

The Court rejected this contention, clearly distinguishing between physical injury and loss of earning capacity.

It held:

“Straightaway 12.5% disfigurement of face is added… whereas the said addition is not permissible in the absence of any reason how such disfigurement adversely affected functional disability and earning capacity.”

Noting that the claimant worked as a cashier performing desk work and had herself admitted she could perform routine activities, the Court concluded:

“Such alleged disfigurement is not resulted or converted into functional disablement.”

The Court distinguished Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Company Ltd., observing that unlike an actress, the claimant’s profession was not impacted by facial appearance.

Principles Reiterated on Functional Disability

The judgment restated that tribunals must actively analyse disability rather than act as passive recipients of medical certificates. Summarising the legal position, the Court underscored that:

• Doctors assess physical disability, not functional disability
• Functional disability must be linked to the claimant’s avocation and earning capacity
• Mechanical acceptance of certificates leads to unjust compensation

As the Court put it:

“Medical Officers are not capable to give opinion about functional disability… this aspect has been elaborately discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

Recalculation of Compensation

Applying the reassessed income, multiplier, and 27% functional disability, the Court recalculated loss of future income and enhanced compensation under other heads.

Key Enhancements Made by the High Court:

• Loss of future income increased to ₹5,66,093
• Pain, shock, and suffering enhanced to ₹50,000
• Special diet, attendant, and transport charges enhanced to ₹30,000
• Actual loss of income during treatment enhanced to ₹45,000

Medical expenses of ₹4,61,500 were upheld.

The total compensation was enhanced to ₹11,52,593, granting an additional ₹2,26,093 over the Tribunal’s award.

Final Directions

Allowing the appeal in part, the Court directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within four weeks.

The Tribunal was instructed to disburse the entire amount to the claimant after due verification and deduction of deficit court fees.

Case Details

• Case Title: Rajmohini @ Rajmohunaben Kidiyabhai Damor v. Shyam Harishbhai Dhokai & Ors.
• Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
• Bench: Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
• Case Number: R/First Appeal No. 3891 of 2023
• Date of Judgment: 19 December 2025

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…