Gujarat High Court
Bhavnaben Vallabhbhai Dhuda vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/618/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 618 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1419 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
BHAVNABEN VALLABHBHAI DHUDA
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH THE
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
============================================
Appearance:
MR MONAL S CHAGLANI(10240) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ESHA S. BHAVSAR FOR AISHVARYA(8018) for the Defendant(s)
No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/12/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident against the MAC Petition No.54 of 2019, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in MAC Petition No.54 of 2019, the appellant - original claimant has filed First Appeal No.618 of Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:41:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/618/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined 2022 and opponent no.1 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "Corporation / GSRTC" for short) has filed First Appeal No.1419 of 2022, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Chaglani learned Advocate for the appellants - original claimants and learned Advocate Ms. E. S. Bhavsar on behalf of Aishvarya for respondent - Corporation. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the appellants that on 24.02.2019 one Mayurbhai Jesinghbhai Dhuda along with his sister Sejalben and niece Bhavnaben (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "injured") were proceeding on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ- 11-DF-8942, from Magharvada to Keshod and when they reached on Keshod Junagadh Highway at about 03:00 O'clock one ST Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-Y-8693, came from the opposite side driving the bus in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle driven by the Mayurbhai. As a result of which Mayurbhai and Sejalben sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to it, whereas, Bhavnaben sustained injuries. Therefore, the appellant - claimant had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Chaglani, for the original claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence and committed error in considering income of the claimant despite the fact the claimant was pursuing Masters of Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:41:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/618/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Social Work and erred in considering income as Rs.5,000/-. The learned Tribunal has not considered all the medical bills and awarded less medical expenses and also awarded meage amount towards loss of amenities and pain, shock and suffering. The learned Tribunal ought to have took judicial notice to award compensation under conventional heads considering hospitalization and multiple injuries sustained by the claimant and to award the amount under the head of attendant charges. Hence, he has requested to allow the present First Appeal No.618 of 2022.
5) Per contra the learned Advocate Ms. E. S. Bhavsar, for the GSRTC in support of First Appeal No.1419 of 2022 and in oppose of the First Appeal No.618 of 2022, has submitted that the deceased Mayurbhai along with deceased sister Sejalben and niece were riding on the motorcycle driven by him in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the ST Bus and due to this reason the motorcyclist Mayurbhai and Sejalben succumbed to the injuries sustained by them and Bhavnaben sustained injuries. Hence, motorcyclist was negligent and to prove the said fact the driver of the bus is examined and it is proved that the motorcyclist was negligent and contributory negligence on the part of motorcyclist is required to be considered. The learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate the liability and contributory negligence on the part of motorcyclist and committed error in holding the bus driver sole negligent for occurrence of the accident. Hence, she has requested to allow the First Appeal No.1419 of 2022.
6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:41:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/618/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined and going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence. The claimant has tendered the affidavit at Exhibit 23 wherein all the facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief- examination and supported the claim petition and relied on the FIR at Exhibit 34, panchnama at Exhibit 35, Medico Legal Certificates and papers issued in favour of the claimant at Exhibits 51 to 56, Disability Certificate of the claimant at Exhibit 57 and medical bills at Exhibit 73. Perusing the said evidence it appears that the ST Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-Y-8693 was in the middle of the road and motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-11- BF-8942, was lying at the place of accident and front portion of the motorcycle was totally damaged. To prove the contributory negligence the driver of the offending bus was examined below Exhibit 65, wherein, he has stated that one handcart of watermelon was going on his side and he drove the bus on the side of motorcycle and due to this reason the motorcycle collided against the bus and alleged accident was occurred. It appears that the driver of bus drove the bus towards motorcycle side and evidence and even the charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the bus and considering the bus being heavy vehicle comparing to the motorcycle it is the duty of the driver of heavy vehicle to avoid head on collision. Therefore, the driver of the bus is sole negligent in occurrence of the accident.
7) Learned Advocate for the Corporation has mainly argued to held the motorcyclist negligent for causing the accident by fixing Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:41:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/618/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined contributory negligence. It is needless to say that so far claimant is concerned she was a pillion rider and in case of pillion rider for her the case is of composite negligence and not of contributory negligent and in the case of composite negligent the claimant has right to recover the amount of compensation from any of the tortfeasors who are involved in the accident and in case of contributory negligent as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273, question does not arise to held contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Hence, arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the GSRTC are not acceptable.
[
8) Now coming back to the First Appeal No.618 of 2022, to prove her age the claimant has not produced any evidence under that circumstances the Tribunal has considered her age as 22 years based on examination-in-chief. She was working with Aastha Hospital and earning Rs.8,000/- and produced Salary Certificate at Exhibit 58 but failed to examine any witness from the Hospital to corroborate her income and prove the document at Exhibit 58 and hence the Tribunal has considered her income as Rs.5,000/- per month. However, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record then Tribunal has to consider prevalent rate of minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the claimant. In the present case the accident occurred on 24.02.2019 and during that time the claimant was doing doing job in Aastha Hospital and her income is required to be considered as per the Government approved rate of minimum Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:41:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/618/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined wages, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced and hence, the income of the claimant is reassessed as Rs.8,200/-
per month. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has committed error in not considering future prospective of the claimant, however, this Court is of the view that considering her age as 22 years at the time of accident, 40% addition towards future prospect is required to be considered. Further, based on the no objection of the learned Advocates the learned Tribunal has considered 20% disability body as a whole and multiplier of 18 were considered by the learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
[2009 (6) SCC 121] and National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700,
9) Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as Rs.8,200/-
and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,280/- which comes to Rs.11,480/-. Now total income towards future economic loss required to be considered as Rs.11,480/- x 12 x 18 x 20% / 100 = Rs.4,95,936/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,16,000/- towards future economic loss, however, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.2,79,936/- towards future economic loss.
10) Further, considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment of the claimant the amount towards pain, shock and suffering is required to be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- (i.e. additional amount of Rs.10,000/-), amount towards special diet, attendant and transportation is enhanced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- (i.e. additional amount of Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:41:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/618/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Rs.2,000/-) and amount towards actual loss of income is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.16,400/- (i.e. additional amount of Rs.6,400/-). Considering the medical bills and expenses incurred by the claimant of her treatment the amount towards medical bills is enhanced from Rs.4,41,005/- to Rs.4,75,000/- (i.e. additional amount of Rs.33,995/-) for awarding just and proper compensation to the claimant.
11) As discussed above, the appellant - original claimant is entitled to get compensation computed as under:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Future economic loss Rs.2,16,000/- Rs.4,95,936/-
including additional amount of
Rs.2,79,936/-
Pain, shock and Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
sufferings including additional amount of
Rs.10,000/-
Special diet, Rs.8,000/- Rs.10,000/-
attendant and including additional amount of
transportation Rs.2,000/-
Medical bills Rs.4,41,005/- Rs.4,75,000/-
including additional amount of
Rs.33,995/-
Actual loss for two Rs.10,000/- Rs.16,400/-
months including additional amount of
Rs.6,400/-
Total compensation Rs.6,85,005/- Rs.10,17,336/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.3,32,331/-
12) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation
of Rs.6,85,005/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,32,331/-
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:41:04 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/618/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined (Rs.10,17,336/- - Rs.6,85,005/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
13) Hence, the First Appeal No.618 of 2022 is partly allowed with no order as to costs and the First Appeal No.1419 of 2022 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment and award dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh, in MAC Petition No.54 of 2019 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent - GSRTC shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.3,32,331/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.
15) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon Dec 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:41:04 IST 2025