[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Gsrtc (St Bus) Regional Director vs Mangabhai Mohanbai Parecha on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 630 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 633 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 634 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
GSRTC (ST BUS) REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Versus
MANGABHAI MOHANBAI PARECHA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance in FA 630/2022:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,7,8
Appearance in FA 633/2022:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1, 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 to 5, 6
Appearance in FA 634/2022:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1, 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 to 4, 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/12/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] Since all these appeals are filed by the appellant - Gujarat
State Road Transport Corporation assailing the impugned common
judgment and award arising from a common accident, they are
being heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment
and for the sake of convenience and brevity, facts from First Appeal
No.630 of 2022 are taken.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
[2.0] By way of present group of First Appeals under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act"), the appellant -
GSRTC - original opponent No.2 has assailed the impugned
common judgment and award dated 31.07.2019 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Jamnagar (for short
"learned Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased
to partly allow the claim petitions by holding the driver of the ST
Bus No.GJ-18-Y-2622 solely negligent for the accident.
[3.0] The brief facts of the case of original claimants of First
Appeal No.630/2022 (MACP No.289/2014) is that on 19.05.2014 at
about 6.30 p.m., when Lilaben Mangabhai Parecha was travelling
as a pillion rider on Suzuki Motorcycle bearing No.GK-5-8273 and
going from their farm at village Tarsai to their home, at that time,
one ST Bus bearing No.GJ-18-Y-2622 (hereinafter referred to as "ST
Bus") being driven by original opponent No.1 and owned by present
appellant - original opponent No.2 came in very rash and negligent
manner and dashed with the Suzuki Motorcycle of the deceased
from last part of the ST Bus as a result of which deceased sustained
serious injuries and died on the spot.
[3.1] It is the case of the original claimants of First Appeal
No.633/2022 (MACP No.291/2014) and First Appeal No.634/2022
(MACP No.290/2014) that deceased Motiben Keshurbhai Jogal
was riding as pillion rider and deceased Keshurbhai Vejabhai Jogal
was driving Hero Honda Motorcycle No.GJ-07-BD-5077 were going
on the said Hero Hona Motorcycle towards Ranakandorana from
Vansjaliya on 19.05.2014 and when they reached on Tarsai Road, at
that time ST Bus came in rash and negligent manner and in full
speed and dashed the Hero Honda Motorcycle from front side as a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
result of which Motiben Keshurbhai Jogal and Keshurbhai Jogal
both sustained injuries and died.
[3.2] The legal heirs and representatives of deceased Lilaben
Mangabhai Parecha filed MACP No.289/2014 and legal heirs and
representatives of deceased Motiben Keshurbhai Jogal and
Keshurbhai Vejabhai Jogal filed MACP Nos.291/2014 and 290/2014
respectively seeking compensation and learned Tribunal after
recording the evidence held the driver of ST Bus to be sole
negligent and directed the appellant herein - GSRTC to pay the
compensation to the original claimants of respective claim
petitions.
[3.3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and award, the appellant - GSRTC has filed the present group of
appeals.
[4.0] Though served, driver of ST Bus, Owner of Hero Honda
Motorcycle, driver and owner of Suzuki Motorcycle have not
appeared.
[5.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. H.C. Naidu for the appellant -
GSRTC, learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah appearing for the original
claimants and learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta for Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. - insurer of Hero Honda Motorcycle.
[6.0] Learned advocate Mr. Naidu appearing for the appellant -
GSRTC has assailed the impugned common judgment and award on
the ground that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not
appreciating the evidence and in not considering the evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
tendered by the driver of the ST Bus, who is the best witness.
Further, while awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal has
committed an error and failed to appreciate the evidence by merely
drawing adverse inference on the part of the ST Bus driver as he
was driving the bigger vehicle and ought to have taken appropriate
care and caution.
[6.1] He has further submitted that it is settled principle of law
that merely the size of vehicle is not a ground to hold the driver of
bigger vehicle negligent. The learned Tribunal has committed an
error in not appreciating the fact that the driver of motorcycles
were not wearing helmet and therefore, contributory negligence on
the part of motorcyclists ought to have been considered. Further,
the pillion riders (deceased persons) were also not wearing helmet
and in cross-examination of the ST Bus driver, said fact is also
admitted that none of the pillion riders were wearing helmet
though the learned Tribunal has not considered the said aspect and
failed to consider contributory negligence on the part of the drivers
of motorcycles. Merely because the complaint and charge-sheet is
filed against the driver of ST Bus is not a ground to hold him solely
negligent for the alleged accident. Relying on the record he has
further submitted that from the record it clearly reveals that the
driver of ST Bus has not contributed in the accident.
[6.2] In the present case, Suzuki Motorcycle hit on the left hand
side i.e. conductor side portion of the ST Bus and thereafter the ST
Bus driver applied the brakes and after traveling for 6 to 7 feet,
another motorcycle i.e. Hero Honda motorcycle which was coming
from the opposite side was dashed with head-on collision and thus,
the accident took place. The driver of motorcycle was not holding
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
valid and effective driving license and was also not wearing helmet
and hence, the appellant - GSRTC is not liable to pay the
compensation. Further, contributory negligence on the part of
motorcycle ought to have been considered. Further, he has
submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded excessive and
exorbitant compensation without properly appreciating the
evidence. Hence, he has requested to allow the First Appeals and
exonerate the GSRTC and quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and award.
[7.0] Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah appearing for the
respective original claimants has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and no
interference by this Court is called for. The accident took place
between three vehicles i.e. ST Bus, Suzuki Motorcycle and Hero
Honda Motorcycle. The complaint and charge-sheet is filed against
the driver of ST Bus and even departmental proceeding is also
initiated against the driver of ST Bus. The learned Tribunal has
rightly held the driver of ST Bus to be solely negligent for the
accident and hence, no error has been committed by the learned
Tribunal in absence of any evidence qua contributory negligence on
the part of the motorcyclists.
[8.0] Learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta appearing for Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. - insurer of Hero Honda Motorcycle has
opposed First Appeal No.630 and 633 of 2022 by adopting the
submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the
original claimants and has further submitted that no negligence is
alleged against the driver of the Hero Honda Motorcycle and even
as per the evidence of ST Bus driver, no contributory negligence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
the part of driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle is made out. He has
further submitted that even if we peruse the the evidence available
on record, no complaint is filed against the driver of Hero Honda
Motorcycle and while initially Suzuki Motorcycle bearing No.GJ-5-
8273 dashed on the left side / conductor side of the ST Bus, the
driver of ST Bus applied brakes after travelling for 7 to 8 feet and
thereafter, Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.GJ-7-BD-5077 came
from the opposite direction and as there was no sufficient width of
the road, Hero Honda Motorcycle dashed on the front portion of
the ST Bus and alleged accident took place and hence, there is no
negligence on the part of driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle and
Suzuki Motorcycle was not joined as a party and came to be deleted
subsequently even in other claim petition.
[9.0] Having heard the learend advocate appearing for the
respective parties and perusing the record, it appears that the
learned Tribunal for the purpose of deciding the issue of negligence
has relied on the evidence of claimant No.1 of MACP No.289/2014
i.e. Mangabhai Mohanbhai Parecha (Exh.50), claimant No.2 of MACP
No.290/2014 i.e. Kanabhai Keshurbhai Jogal (Exh.51) and claimant
No.1 of MACP No.291/2014 i.e. Jiteshbhai @ Jitubhai Keshurbhai
Jogal (Exh.53). Perusing the evidence of respective claimants, it
appears that the offending ST Bus came in rash and negligent
manner with full speed and dashed with the motocycles. Even, the
driver of ST Bus i.e. Punjabhai Ranmalbhai Ranavaya has filed his
affidavit (Exh.85) in MACP No.289/2014 and in the cross-
examination he has admitted that if he would have applied the
brake of ST Bus and bus would have stopped then the accident
could have been avoided.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
[9.1] Perusing the evidence of the driver of offending vehicle ST
Bus, it appears that the ST Bus after application of brake moved for
7 to 8 feet and the said fact also reveals from the panchnama of
scene of accident and thus, it is clear that even after applying the
brakes, the ST Bus did not stop or controlled and travelled further
for 7 to 8 feet ahead which is sufficient to presume that the ST Bus
was in excessive speed. Even, the complaint and charge-sheet is
filed against the driver of the ST Bus.
[10.0] Now, so far as the argument of learned advocate for the
appellant as regards contributory negligence of motorcycle driver is
concerned, Suzuki Motorcycle No.GJ-5-8273 dashed on the left
side / conductor side of the ST Bus near the door of the ST Bus and
thereafter, Hero Honda Motorcycle dashed on the front portion of
the ST Bus. The driver as well as the pillion rider of Hero Honda
Motorcycle died in the accident and pillion rider of Suzuki
Motorcycle also died and thus, three persons died in the accident
which itself shows that the ST Bus was moving in speed. In absence
of any evidence of contributory negligence, nothing reveals from
the record that driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle was negligent or
has contributed in the accident. In cross-examination, the driver of
ST Bus has accepted that the Hero Honda Motorcycle did not
dashed with the bus and hence, question does not arise to hold the
driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle negligent or contributory
negligent for the accident.
[10.1] Further, from the panchnama of scene of offence, it
appears that the road was a single track road and that ST Bus was
lying diagonally on the road. Hence, merely based on presumption,
contributory negligence on the part of motorcycle cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
considered. To prove contributory negligence, evidence is required
to be led or from preponderence of probability, same is required to
be inferred. But merely because there was a collision of motorcycle
with the ST Bus, it inherently does not indicate negligence on the
part of the Hero Honda Motorcycle. So far as original claimants of
First Appeal No.630/2022 (MACP No.289/2014) and First Appeal
No.633/2022 (MACP No.291/2014) are concerned, both the
deceased were pillion riders on different motorcycles and it goes
without saying that both pillion riders have nothing to with the
contributory negligence as for both of them, the case was of
composite negligence. Hence, argument canvassed by the learned
advocate for the appellant - GSRTC as regards contributory
negligence of deceased pillion riders is not accepted.
[10.2] So far as original claimants of First Appeal No.634/2022
(MACP No.290/2014) is concerned, in light of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrikrishna Kanta Singh Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors. reported in 2025
INSC 394, in absence of any evidence, contributory negligence is
not proved and no sufficient material is on record based on which
contributory negligence can be inferred against the deceased
pillion riders. So far as panchnama is concerned, same is not clear
and considering the deposition and the evidence of driver of ST Bus
it is clear that the Hero Honda Motorcycle has not dashed with the
ST Bus and no complaint is filed against him but is filed against the
driver of ST Bus and even charge-sheet is also filed against the ST
bus driver. Hence, merely based on the panchnama or in absence of
any direct or corroborative piece of evidence, no inference can be
drawn with regard to contributory negligence on the part of
deceased or pillion riders based on position of vehicles in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
panchnama. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila
& Ors vs Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166
wherein in paragraph 20.5, it has been observed and held as under:
"20.5. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown
in a Scene Mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the
rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When
two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the
position of the vehicles and its direction etc. depends on number
of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for
collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the
scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner
in which the accident caused, but in absence of any direct or
corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to
whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In
absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court
cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of
any individual."
Hence, in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence to
prove the the contributory negligence on the part of Hero Honda
Motorcycle bearing No.GJ-07-BD-5077, no case is made out to infer
contributory negligence on the part of driver of Hero Honda
Motorcycle No.GJ-07-BD-5077.
[10.3] Even if for the sake of argument, 10% contributory
negligence on the part of driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle is
believed as argued by learned advocate for the appellant, then also,
considering the smallness of amount, question does not arise to
infer the same in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2025 INSC 357 as MV Act is a
beneficial legislation and that seeks to provide compensation as per
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially
looking forward. The compensation under the MV Act is concerned
with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future.
[11.0] Now, so far as quantum of compensation awarded by
the learned Tribunal in respective claim petitions is concerned,
perusing the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has
properly appreciated the evidence of income of deceased persons
and accordingly, has awarded just and proper compensation
towards future loss of dependency and also under other
conventional heads which does not require any interference by this
Court. Details of amount of compensation to be paid to the original
claimants of respective claim petitions is as under:
First Appeal No.630/2022 (MACP No.289/2014)
Future loss of dependency Rs.11,38,592/-
Funeral Charges Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate and Consortium Rs.55,000/-
Total... Rs.12,08,592/-
First Appeal No.633/2022 (MACP No.291/2014)
Future loss of dependency Rs.5,78,864/-
Funeral Charges Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Total... Rs.6,08,864/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/630/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
First Appeal No.634/2022 (MACP No.290/2014)
Future loss of dependency Rs.4,73,616/-
Funeral Charges Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Total... Rs.5,03,616/-
[12.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeals
stand dismissed.
[13.0] The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount
of compensation lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with
accrued interest thereon, if any, to the original claimants of MACP
Nos.289/2014, 290/2014 and 291/2014 by account payee cheque /
NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
this judgment.
[14.0] While making the payment, the learned Tribunal shall
deduct the courts fees, if not paid.
[15.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
