The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited challenging a ₹12.95 lakh compensation award to a young man who suffered permanent disability in a motorcycle accident. Justice J. C. Doshi held that income-tax returns can serve as important evidence for assessing income in motor accident claims and upheld the award of compensation for future prospects.
The Court found no illegality, perversity or material error warranting interference with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s decision, which awarded ₹12,95,280 in compensation with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realisation.
The accident occurred on March 25, 2012, when Pankajkumar Mahendrasinh Beravat was travelling on a motorcycle driven by Rameshbhai Hemabhai Beravat in Dahod, Gujarat. The motorcycle slipped after the driver abruptly applied the brakes, throwing the claimant onto the road. He sustained injuries, including a fracture in his left leg, and received hospital treatment until April 2, 2012.
Beravat claimed that he had been earning approximately ₹28,000 per month as a contractor and civil engineer while pursuing a diploma in civil engineering. He relied on income-tax returns for four financial years to establish his earnings and sought ₹15 lakh in compensation.
On January 29, 2025, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹12,95,280, including compensation for future loss of income, actual loss of income, pain and suffering, and related expenses. The insurance company challenged the award, disputing the claimant’s income and his entitlement to future prospects.
Rejecting the insurance company's challenge to the income assessment, Justice Doshi noted that the insurer had neither produced evidence to discredit the returns nor questioned the claimant about them during cross-examination.
The Court observed:
Income-tax returns are statutory documents which constitute relevant evidence for determining the income of a person.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rashmirekha Tripathi v. The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, the High Court held that the average income reflected in the returns could be considered when assessing earnings from business or professional activities. The mere fact that the claimant was a student did not establish that he could not have earned an independent income.
On future prospects, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali and V. Pathmavathi v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Company Limited. It held that future prospects form part of just compensation and are not restricted to persons holding permanent government jobs.
Justice Doshi found that the insurance company had failed to demonstrate any illegality, material error or other ground warranting interference. The Court also criticised the re-agitation of issues already settled by binding precedents but refrained from imposing costs.
The High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal's compensation award of ₹12,95,280 with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realisation. The connected civil application was disposed of as it no longer survived.
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pankajkumar Mahendrasinh Beravat & Anr.
Case Number: R/First Appeal No. 2637 of 2025, with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2025
Judge: Justice J. C. Doshi
Decision Date: September 28, 2026
