MV Act | Gujarat High Court Awards ₹3 Lakh To Woman For 'Loss Of Matrimonial Prospects' After Accident Resulting In Leg Amputation

The Gujarat High Court recently awarded Rs. 3 Lakh to a woman for loss of matrimonial prospects, after a bus accident which resulted in the amputation of her left leg. 

The woman had moved the high court challenging a 2019 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), seeking enhancement of compensation. The appellant was travelling in an AMTS bus on 05.01.2011, from Lal Darwaja to her home and at Malav Talav. When she was getting off the bus from the front door, the driver of the bus drove in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the appellant fell and the frontvwheel of the bus ran over her left leg.

As a result, the appellant got serious injuries and her left leg, below her knee, was amputated. An FIR was also filed and subsequently the appellant moved a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 30 Lakh. However the tribunal awarded her Rs.11,96,441 along with cost and interest @ 9 % p.a.

Justice Hasmukh D Suthar in his order said:

"It is to be noted that at the time of accident, the appellant was young lady aged about 19 years, who lost her left leg in the accident, however, the Tribunal has erred in not awarded any compensation towards loss of matrimonial prospects. Considering the same, the claimant – victim is entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of loss of matrimonial prospects". 

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Tribunal had failed to properly appreciate the documents produced on record and has not correctly assessed the income of the victim, who has suffered severe bodily disablement. The Tribunal had not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of marriage prospects, even though the victim, being a young lady, had to undergo amputation of her left leg. Instead a meagre amount of Rs. 25,000 was awarded under the head of 'pain, shock, and suffering'. It was contended that the evidence on record, including the certificates issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon, remained unchallenged, which indicate that the artificial leg requires replacement every 3 to 5 years.

Meanwhile the respondents argued that the appellant was a student of PTC course and, even after the accident, she was able to continue her studies. Therefore, there is no loss of future prospects, as she can still pursue a career as a teacher and earn accordingly. Hence, no adverse effect on her earning capacity or functional disability should be considered, considering the nature of the work she would be required to perform as a teacher. It was further submitted that the amputation of the leg is below the knee, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 50%, which is just and proper. 

The court noted that the Tribunal had said that as per the disability certificate, the appellant had suffered 45% partial permanent disablement due to the injuries sustained, resulting in amputation of her left leg below the knee.

It noted that the Tribunal had considered the disability at 50% for the purpose of awarding just compensation, observing that the case does not fall under permanent total disablement, as the appellant being a teacher could undertake teaching or other suitable work.

"At the time of the accident, the appellant was a PTC student and subsequently, continued and completed her studies. To prove her prospective income, the appellant examined her co-student, Aartiben, as a witness, attempting to establish the income she would have earned after completing the PTC course. However, the Tribunal did not consider this evidence and assessed her notional income at Rs. 5,000/- per month, observing that no documentary proof of income was produced on record," the court said. 

The court found that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.7,000  p.m including future prospect, considering disability at 40% and also multiplier of 18 as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) which was just and proper.

"Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs.7,56,000/- as future loss of income. So far medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,90,441/-, which is also just and proper," the court said. 

The court further observed that the Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 18 as referred to by the Supreme Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020) and hence no error was committed. 

The court however enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant for pain, shock and suffering from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,00,000, noting that the appellant as a"young lady has lost her left leg".

"So far attendance, special diet and transportation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.10,000/- which also needs to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life and future medical expenses are also required to be enhanced as the appellant has to replace her artificial leg at every 3 to 5 years continuously," the court said.

It enhanced compensation for loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 2 Lakh and future medical expenses from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 2 Lakh. It thereafter additionally awarded 3 Lakh as compensation for loss of marital prospects and partly allowed the appeal. 

Case title: JIGISHABEN MAHESHBHAI PATEL v/s SIPAI MOHAMMADKHAN RASULKHAN & ORS

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1327 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 204