[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Hareshbhai Bhupatbhai Vala vs Arjanbhai Devayatbhai Charaniya on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4339/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4339 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
HARESHBHAI BHUPATBHAI VALA & ANR.
Versus
ARJANBHAI DEVAYATBHAI CHARANIYA & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
BHAVIN B THAKAR(9371) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR JIGAR D DAVE(6528) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 12.05.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Una (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for
short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.12 of 2016, filed under
Section 163-A of the Motors Vehicles Act, the appellants - original
opponents preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. J. D. Dave, learned Advocate for the appellants - original
opponents and Mr. Hemal Shah, learned Advocate for respondents
herein - original claimants.
3) It is the case of the original claimants that on 12.01.2013 at 07:00
hours on Kesariya - Diu road near Diamond Factory the deceased
Jantibhai Arjanbhai Charaniya, was going on motorcycle bearing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4339/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Reg. No.GJ-11-RR-7758 and reached at the accidental spot at that
time driver of Tractor bearing Reg. No.GJ-11-AD-3231 was coming
in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the
motorcycle. As such deceased sustained several injuries and
succumbed to it. A complaint being I-C.R. no.11 of 2013 was
registered with Una Police Station. Therefore, the original claimants
being legal heirs of the deceased had filed MAC Petition seeking
compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. After appreciating
the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased
to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed error while appreciating the evidence and
merely based on presumptions has considered the income of the
deceased whereas the age of the deceased is not proved. The
learned Tribunal has committed error in interpreting the provision
of Section 163-A of the Act and no material is produced on record.
He has further submitted that the Criminal Court has acquitted the
driver of offending vehicle as there was no negligence on his part.
Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Learned Advocate for the respondents herein - original claimants
has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal
has considered income of Rs.3,333/- per month only income of
Rs.40,000/- per month in the petition under Section 163-A and
negligence is not required to be proved and driver of offending
vehicle is liable for causing the accident. Considering the evidence
the learned Tribunal has properly awarded the compensation and
hence requested to dismiss the present appeal in absence of any
material.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4339/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
6) Having heard both the learned Advocate and perusing the
impugned judgment it appears that the claim petition was filed
under Section 163-A of the Act. It is needless to say that in petition
filed under Section 163-A the negligence should not be proved only
involvement of the offending vehicle is required to be proved.
Herein the involvement of Truck No.GJ-11-AD-3231 is proved as
complaint was lodged against the driver of Truck and subsequently
chargesheet was filed. Merely, acquittal of truck driver in criminal
case is not a ground to dismiss the said petition. The judgments of
the Criminal Courts are not binding to the Tribunal and in this
regard the learned Tribunal has rightly relied on the case of Bai
Nanda and others Vs. Shivabhai Shankerbhai Patel and
others, reported in 1966 ACJ 290. As per settled law mere filing
of criminal case may not necessarily proof of negligence in the
claim petition but evidence produced before the Tribunal is required
to be analyze by the Tribunal and consider by the Tribunal based on
touchstone of preponderance of probability. The evidence on record
is deposition of claimant no.1 at Exhibit 13, wherein, he has
reiterated the contents of the petition and nothing come on record
from his cross-examination. The compensation is granted under
Section 163-A of the Act on structure formula and when the petition
filed under Section 163-A of the Act the claimant is not required to
prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as the
cause of the accident and involvement of the vehicle is proved then
claimant succeeds in the petition. As negligence is not required to
be proved it is not open for the learned Advocate for the appellants
to raise any defence qua negligent on the part of victim. Hence,
arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellants
are not acceptable and as discussed above judgment rendered in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4339/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Criminal Case No.999 of 2013, in favour of accused of offending
vehicle such acquittal is not relevant to decide the claim as
involvement of vehicle is proved. Hence, argument that driver of
offeding vehicle is acquitted in criminal trial is not sustainable.
7) Now coming back to the involvement of the vehicle is proved which
is duly corroborated with documentary evidence like FIR,
panchnama, PM Report. As per claim petition age of the deceased
was 30 years and as per post-mortem report his age was 30 to 35
years and age group of 26-30 years was considered 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 as per second schedule of MV Act Rs.40,000/- notional
income is considered and multiplier of 17, then loss of dependency
comes to Rs.6,40,000/- per annum and after 1/3 deduction amount
comes to Rs.4,26,667/- and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and
Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate were awarded by the learned Tribunal
which are just and proper and the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in awarding total compensation of Rs.
4,31,167/-. It is needless to say that under Section 171 of the Act
the Tribunal has discretion to award the rate of interest and hence
no error is committed by the learned Tribunal.
8) In view of above, no interference is required as the learned Tribunal
has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment
and award. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. Record and
proceedings, if any, be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
