Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Vanitaben Mukeshbhai Mavi on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2609/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2609 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
VANITABEN MUKESHBHAI MAVI & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 24.07.2024, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Dahod at Limkheda, (hereinafter referred to as
"the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.83
of 2021, the appellant - respondent no.2 therein preferred
present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellant. Perused the original
record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the original claimants - respondent nos.1 to 6
therein, that on 27.02.2021, the deceased Mukeshbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2609/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Jokhnabhai Mavi, was going on his motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.GJ-20-AG-2659. The deceased Mukeshbhai was driving the
said motorcycle slowly and carefully on the right side of the road
and about 13:00 hours while he was passing from highway road
of the Umedpura Village, at that time the opponent no.1 -
respondent no.7 herein driver of S.T.Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-
Z-6344, came in rash and negligent manner and at excessive
speed and lost his control over steering due to which the bus
dashed with the motorcycle and accident occurred. As a result of
which Mukeshbhai Jokhnabhai Mavi died. A complaint being I-
C.R. No.11821035210042 of 2021 came to be registered with
Limkheda Police Station. Therefore, the original claimants have
filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the
evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased
to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) The appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation (which shall hereinafter be referred to as
"Corporation") mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal
has committed error by not considering the negligence of the
vehicle involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal ought to
have consider contributory negligence of the deceased. Further,
the complaint is filed belatedly and no vehicle number is
mentioned in the complaint and vehicle is falsely enroped.
Hence, he has requested to admit the present appeal.
5) Perusing the impugned judgment it reveals that the learned
Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and the
Corporation has filed written statement at Exhibit 25 and denied
the negligence and income of the deceased and further stated
that after lapse of 5 months the driver of ST Bus was arrested
and ST Bus is involved dragged into the accident. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2609/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation. In order to
prove the claim the claimant no.1 - respondent no.1 herein has
tender her evidence below Exhibit 11 and was cross-examined at
length by the learned Advocate for the Corporation. The
claimants have produced the complaint at Exhibit 13,
panchnama at Exhibit 14, inquest panchnama at Exhibit 15,
post-mortem report at Exhibit 18, charge-sheet at Exhibit 18
and PAN Card of the deceased at Exhibit 20. On the negligence
part the learned Tribunal has relied upon Bimla Devi Vs. H. R.
T. C., reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi
Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 636, and the
Tribunal has decided the issue of negligence in the claim petition
on the basis of preponderance of probability. As per the case
and evidence produced on record on 27.02.2021, the deceased
husband of the claimant no.1 was going on his motorcycle
bearing Reg. No.GJ-20-AG-2659 and the deceased was driving
the said motorcycle slowly and carefully on the right side of the
road. While he was passing from highway road of the Umedpura
Village, at that time the opponent no.1 driver of S.T.Bus bearing
Reg. No.GJ-18-Z-6344, came in rash and negligent manner and
at excessive speed and lost his control over steering due to
which the bus dashed with the motorcycle due to which the
alleged accident was occurred and complaint was filed. The
charge-sheet is filed against the ST bus driver and police has
arrested him after four months. The driver of bus appeared and
tendered his evidence and admitted that the charge-sheet is
filed against him but the Corporation failed to prove involvement
of the motorcycle and to show that the driver of bus was not
negligent in the accident. Due to negligent act on the part of
driver of bus the alleged incident took place and resultantly the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2609/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
deceased succumbed to his accidental injuries. In absence of
any material qua contributory negligence non involvement of
vehicle the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in
fastening the liability of the ST Bus. So far delay in filing
complaint and not mentioning bus number in the same are
concerned, the same are not grounds to refuse the claim of the
claimants and delay in filing the complaint will not fatal the filing
of claim petition. As claim petitions are required to be proved on
preponderance of probability and not test of proof beyond
reasonable doubt unlike criminal proceedings as per Hon'ble
High Court of Bombay in case of Dilip Vs Chandrakant,
reported in 2020 ACJ 712. Hence, the arguments canvassed by
the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation is not
accepted. So far the quantum part is concerned the learned
Tribunal keeping in mind the evidence produced and minimum
wages of prevalent time and future prospects are considered and
also considered multiplier as per the judgment of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017
ACJ 2700 and Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121]. Hence,
the learned Advocate for the appellant failed to point out any
error committed by the learned Tribunal in quantum part.
6) 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 at the admission stage.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
