Gujarat High Court
Heirs Of Decd Manishbhai Bhikharam ... vs Nathani Abdulmajid Karimbhai on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/102/2013 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 102 of 2013
==========================================================
HEIRS OF DECD MANISHBHAI BHIKHARAM AGRAVAT & ORS.
Versus
NATHANI ABDULMAJID KARIMBHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Respondent (s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent (s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the heirs of deceased Manishbhai Bhikharam Agravat and others under the provisions of 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar, in M.A.C. Petition No. 72/2011, mainly on the grounds that when the petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act is preferred, the Tribunal ought not Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:22:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/102/2013 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined to have considered the negligence of either parties and in doing so, the Tribunal has committed grave error.
2. Ld. Advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta for the appellants fairly contended that in the award passed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal ought to have follow structural formula as provided under the Act and hence, 30% increase as prospective income relying upon the judgment of Santoshi Devi Vs national Insurance Company reported in 2012 ACJ 142, is against the settled principles of law and thus, prayed to allow the present appeal based on structural formula.
3. Ld. Advocate Ms. Hina Desai for the Respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the present Appeal and has argued that no inference is required at the ends of this Court since a well reasoned judgment and award Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:22:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/102/2013 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined is passed by the Tribunal.
4. Heard Ld. Advocate for the respective parties. The only question falls for consideration before this Court is whether the Tribunal fell in error in considering the aspect of negligence in the petition under Section 163A of the Act as preferred by the heirs of the deceased Manishbhai Bhikharam Agravat?
5. It is also required to be noted that at the time of accident, the age of deceased was 23 years, which is not in dispute.
6. The issue is no more res-integra. The Judgment in the case of Sinitha is overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Ins. Co. Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar reported in AIR 2017 SC 5710 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held as under:-
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:22:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/102/2013 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined "8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-
contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim."
Considering the same, as per the structured Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:22:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/102/2013 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined formula, the Appellant is liable to be paid sum of Rs. 2,44,667/-. as per the calculation hereinbelow:-
Calculation Income Monthly 2500/-
x one year(12 months) 12
______________
yearly income 30,000/-
Datum figure as per 2nd 6,40,000/-
Schedule (2,16,000/- + 3,24,000/-)
- Deduction (1/3rd) 2,13,333/-
______________
4,26,667/-
+ Loss of Estate 2,500/-
+ Funeral Exp. 2,000/-
______________
4,31,167/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal
1,86,500/-
______________
Additional Amount to be paid 2,44,667/-
Since the income of the deceased is considered at Rs. 2500/- per month which come to Rs. 30,000/- per year. On perusal of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 the sum total of slab of 12,000/-
and 18,000/- comes to Rs. 30,000/- since after that Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:22:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/102/2013 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined slab of 18,000/-, there is slab of Rs. 24,000/-, 36,000/-
and 40,000/-. Thus, considering the age of the deceased as above 20 and not exceeding 25, sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- and 3,24,000/- for annual income of Rs.
12,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- respectively comes to Rs.
6,40,000/- and this Court has considered the income of deceased accordingly.
6. From the aforesaid calculation, the amount of Rs.
1,86,500/- granted by the Tribunal is required to be deducted and the balance be disbursed to the heirs of the deceased Manishbhai Bhikharam Agravat by the Tribunal after due verification.
7. The aforesaid amount will carry 7.5% per annum.
8. Deficit Court fees, if any, to be made good by the Appellants herein.
9. The Respondents to deposit the differential Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:22:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/102/2013 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined amount before the concerned Tribunal within 12 weeks from today.
10. In view of the reasons stated hereinabove, the present First Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) MMP Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:22:52 IST 2025