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
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
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:-
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
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/-
______________
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
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
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
