[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/-
NEUTRAL 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
