Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Kaushal Gautambhai @ Rohatambhai Ravat
2025 Latest Caselaw 7942 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Kaushal Gautambhai @ Rohatambhai Ravat on 14 November, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/4079/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4079 of 2025

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                       Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                  GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                                                    Versus
                                KAUSHAL GAUTAMBHAI @ ROHATAMBHAI RAVAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                            Date : 14/11/2025

                                                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 07.08.2025 passed by learned 4 th Addl. District Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Rural), Ahmedabad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.390 of 2017, the appellant - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ("GSRTC" for short) has preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the issue is in narrow compass, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in fact, when the claimant and his brother in law were going on a cycle on the road,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025

undefined

were hit by some other motor-cyclist and not by the ST Bus. Further, the Tribunal has not at all examined the issue of contributory negligence of brother-in-law of respondent No.1 who was riding a cycle. It is also submitted that, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the claimant was earning Rs.7,000/- per month, though there is nothing on record about his educational qualification and economic activities carried out by him. The Tribunal has erred in concluding that the claimant sustained 100 % functional disability body as a whole, though Medical certificate reveals that he has suffered permanent disability of 32 % as a whole. Further, there is nothing on record to determine the age of the claimant, however, the Tribunal has applied 18 multiplier considering the age of 18 at the time of accident. Therefore, he has requested to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4) The facts emerge from the record are that, on 28.12.2016, the original claimant along with Lavkush Ravat, who is brother of his brother-in-law was travelling on a cycle towards Nikol and at around 08:15 a.m, when the claimant was riding cycle carefully on the road, one ST Bus came from behind and dashed into the rear side of the cycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant and pillion rider of a cycle sustained fractures and grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of ST Bus. Therefore, the claimant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, wherein learned Tribunal after considering the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the claimant and material produced on record, awarded compensation of Rs.18,09,000/- along with interest @ 9 % P.A. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation, the appellant - GSRTC has filed present appeal for quashment of the award and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025

undefined

reduction of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.

5) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that the appellant has filed present appeal mainly on two counts i.e. (i) contributory negligence and (ii) quantum of income assessed at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is on a higher side. It further appears that so far as minimum wage prevalent in December, 2016 is concerned, as the claimant was unskilled labour, the Tribunal has rightly assessed monthly income at Rs.7,000/-, which is just compensation. So far disability part is concerned, disability certificate produced at Exh:74, which shows 32 % disability and opined permanent partial disability of 60 %. Perusing the said disability certificate, it appears that the victim has suffered fracture of the right superior and inferior public rami, transverse processes of L3, L4, L5 and the L1 vertebra. The claimant has also deposed on oath that due to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered intense physical and mental trauma. As a result of injuries to the kidney and urethral region, he had to undergo multiple operations; and even today he experiences severe urinary complications, including loss of control and involuntary leakage. Additionally, the applicant has sustained serious fractures in the spinal area, resulting in chronic back pain, inability to sleep properly, and restricted movement. There is also a risk of future paraplegia. Due to fractures in the right arm and leg, he faces difficulty in holding objects, lifting weight, performing daily tasks, standing for long periods, and sitting cross legged. As the claimant was engaged in labour work and due to such injuries and after post trauma complication also, he is unable to do work and such disability has turned into unemployment. In view of the same, the Tribunal has not committed any error in considering 100 % functional disability. Further, considering the age of claimant as 18, Tribunal has rightly

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025

undefined

applied 18 multiplier which is just and proper compensation. Hence, on two counts, arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant are not acceptable.

6) So far as other heads are concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any voice and appeal is filed mainly on the ground of negligence.

7) Insofar as the quantum is not seriously disputed, the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the victim is concerned. The main argument of the appellant is that no chargesheet was filed against the driver of the ST bus. However, the involvement of the vehicle is not disputed, and therefore the Tribunal concluded that there was sole negligence on the part of the ST bus driver, especially since the claimant was on a cycle. The appellant contended that GSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation on the ground that another motorcycle had collided with the claimant's cycle, which allegedly caused the accident, and that consequently no chargesheet was filed against the ST bus driver. However, this contention is not proved on record. The evidence before the Tribunal, including the FIR filed against the ST bus driver and the panchnama produced at Exh. 77, clearly shows the involvement of the vehicle. The victim was the sole eyewitness, and he deposed that when he and his brother-in-law were travelling to Nikol on the correct side of the road, the offending bus driver hit them from behind. In absence of any rebuttal evidence or examination of the ST bus driver to show that he was neither involved nor negligent, the appellant failed to establish its defence. The appellant did not examine its own employee i.e. the driver nor produce any evidence supporting its version. Hence, considering both the documentary and oral evidence, the involvement of the ST bus

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4079/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025

undefined

bearing registration No.GJ-18-Y-8844 is established, and the Tribunal rightly concluded that the ST bus driver was solely negligent. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly rejected the defence of contributory negligence. When the appellant specifically pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the ST bus driver, it was incumbent upon the appellant to examine the driver as a witness, which it failed to do. The cycle and ST Bus were going in the same direction, and as the driver of a heavy vehicle, the ST bus driver was required to exercise a higher degree of care. Since the cyclist was going on a correct side of the road, it was the duty of the ST bus driver to take due care and avoid the accident.

8) For the foregoing reasons and observations, the Tribunal has not committed any error in refusing the defense of contributory negligence while awarding compensation. Hence, present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

SUCHIT