Unmerited Appeal Against Motor Accident Award Is Abuse Of Process, Aggravates Victim's Hardship: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court observed that the statutory right of appeal, though valuable, cannot be used to re-agitate issues already settled by binding precedents and in a manner that results in abuse of the process of law and aggravates victim's hardship.

While dismissing an insurance company's appeal against a motor accident award, the High Court further held that Income Tax Returns (ITRs), being statutory documents, constitute an important reference point for assessing the income of the victim to calculate the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the same cannot be lightly brushed aside as “fabricated” in absence of any cogent evidence.

Justice JC Doshi said:

“The statutory right of appeal, though valuable, cannot be permitted to be exercised in a manner that results in abuse of the process of law. An appeal cannot be instituted merely to re-agitate issues which stand concluded by binding precedents, without demonstrating any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment and award.

This aspect assumes greater significance in motor accident claim proceedings, where the claimant is a victim of a road accident who has already suffered bodily injury, permanent disability or, in appropriate cases, loss of life of a family member. The object of such proceedings is to provide expeditious and just compensation to the victim. Unnecessary prolongation of such proceedings, without any sustainable ground for interference, would only aggravate the hardship already suffered by the victim".

The appeal was filed by United India Insurance Company Limited against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dahod, which had awarded compensation of Rs 12,95,280 to the accident victim Pankajkumar Mahendrasinh Beravat.

Beravat— who was riding pillion on a motorcycle driven by Rameshbhai Hemabhai Beravat— suffered severe injuries in March 2012 after the driver abruptly applied brakes, causing the motorcycle to slip. Pankajkumar, then aged 23, submitted that at the time of the accident he was a third-year Diploma student in Civil Engineering and was also working as a civil contractor. He also submitted ITRs, which were taken into account by the MACT to calculate the compensation. Aggrieved by the award, the insurance company appealed before the High Court.

'Evidentiary value of ITRs cannot be lightly brushed aside'

The High Court rejected the appellant's argument that it was highly improbable for the claimant to be earning sufficient income as to file ITRs while pursuing full-time studies and that the ITRs submitted by the claimant were fictitious.

“Income-tax returns are statutory documents which constitute relevant evidence for determining the income of a person. The evidentiary value of income-tax returns and the income assessed on the basis thereof cannot be lightly brushed aside Income-tax returns. Being statutory documents, constitute an important reference point for determining the income of a person, including a person earning income from business or professional activities,” the Court said.

It added, “Therefore, in absence of any cogent or concrete evidence in contrast demonstrating that the income-tax returns were fabricated or that the income disclosed therein was artificially inflated, the mere assertion that such returns were filed with a view to exaggerate the income cannot be accepted.”

The Court further noted that the appellant failed to dispute the factum of filing of the income-tax returns by the claimant either in the written statement, by leading evidence or during the cross-examination of the claimant.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Rashmirekha Tripathi and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 654, the High Court held, “In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the contention that the claimant, being a student, could not have earned income from any independent business or profession, or that the income-tax returns were filed merely to inflate his income, cannot be accepted.”

Compensation towards 'future prospects' not limited to permanent employees

The High Court also rejected the insurance company's second contention that the claimant was not entitled to compensation towards loss of future prospects because he had not suffered injuries that completely incapacitated him from pursuing his occupation.

Placing reliance on the Apex Court ruling in Meena Pawaia and Others v. Ashraf Ali and Others, (2021) 17 SCC 148, the High Court said that the “future prospects” are an additional component while determining the just and fair compensation and that increase in income over a period of time is an inevitable phenomenon.

The Court also noted that the principle of future prospects is not confined only to cases where the deceased or injured person was in permanent employment.

“Ergo, the Insurance Company has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or material error in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal warranting interference by this Court.,” Justice Doshi held.

Finding no merit, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the tribunal order.