Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road And Transport ... vs Mahavir Chandanmal Jain on 26 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/248/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 248 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 660 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
MAHAVIR CHANDANMAL JAIN & ANR.
============================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RISHIKESH J MEHRA(8606) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 26/11/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Since both these appeals are arising out of the same
accident and the grounds and issue involved in both the appeals
are common, they are being heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment. Both the First Appeals are
filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (which
shall hereinafter be referred to as "Corporation"). The First
Appeal No.248 of 2022 is arises out of MAC Petition No.106 of
2000 filed by the claimant - Mahavir Chandanmal Jain and First
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/248/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
Appeal No.660 of 2022 arises out of MAC Petition No.105 of
2000 filed by the claimant - Renukaben W/o Mahavir Jain.
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 20.08.2018, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Court No.6, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short),
in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.105 of 2000 and 106 of
2000, the appellant - respondent no.2 therein preferred both
these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard learned Advocate Ms. S. K. Madavia for the appellant,
learned Advocate Mr. V. A. Vyas for the respondent no.1 -
original claimants of both the appeals. Perused the original
record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the original claimants - respondent no.1 in both
the appeals that on 20.11.1999 the claimant Mahavir
Chandanmal Jain along with his wife Renukaben went to Mahudi
in Maruti Franti Car owned by Mahavirbhai bearing Reg. No.GJ-
1-7701, and on second day i.e. 21.11.1999 they were returning
to Ahmedabad, during 07:00 hours in the evening, the
respondent no.1 therein - respondent no.2 herein was driving
ST Bus owned by respondent no.2 therein - appellant herein,
bearing Reg. No.GJ-1-Z-2864, in rash and negligent manner
dashed with the car of the claimants due to which the car flung
40 feet away from the place of accident and as a result of which
the claimants sustained grievous injuries including fractures.
Therefore, the original claimants have filed MAC Petitions
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/248/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced
on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed
both the claim petitions.
4) Learned Advocate Ms. S. K. Mandavia for the appellant -
Corporation has argued that the learned Tribunal has committed
error in not considering the contributory negligence of the
claimant Mahavirbhai as he was travelling along with his wife
and bus came from Gandhinagar dashed with the car, though
the said version is not proved considering the damage caused to
the bus and road having sufficient width and 20 feet distance the
car driver Mahavirbhai had seen the bus coming from opposite
side and despite there was head-on collision the Tribunal held
the bus driver 100% negligent for the accident, however, 50%
negligence on the part of claimant Mahavirbhai is required to be
considered as he was driving the car as the accident was head-
on collision and hence both the drivers are equally liable for the
accident. In both the petitions it is submitted that though
claimants have not suffered loss of future income the learned
Tribunal has committed error in awarding amount under the
head of future loss of income. Even no disability is proved on
record and no disability sustained to the claimants despite that
the learned Tribunal has considered disability relying on
disability certificate which was subsequently produced on record.
So far claimant Mahavirbhai is concerned he was engaged in the
business and was running a shop in Kalupur Market. The injury
certificate is produced after 10 years of the accident and Dr.
Nalin M. shah assessed the disability as 22.5% body as a whole
and the learned Tribunal has considered the disability at 11%.
Further in absence of any proof the Tribunal has wrongly relied
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/248/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
on Income Tax Returns of the claimant. So far the claimant
Renukaben is concerned she was engaged in the business of
cutlery and cosmetics and also a partner in business of her
husband in Kalupur Market and the said business continued after
the accident and no loss of income suffered by the claimant
Renukaben. The injury certificate is issued after 10 years of the
accident and Dr. Nalin M. Shah assessed the disability as 20%
body as a whole and the learned Tribunal has considered the
same as 10%. Further in absence of any proof the Tribunal has
wrongly relied on Income Tax Returns of the claimant. Hence, he
has requested to allow both the appeals and to consider
contributory negligence of the driver of the car.
5) Learned Advocate Mr. V. A. Vyas for original claimants has
opposed the present appeal and submitted that the negligence
of ST bus driver is proved on record and no driver of bus is
examined and the Tribunal has considered proper compensation
and awarded just compensation. The injury certificate is on
record and nowhere challenged the said fact. The Tribunal has
properly assessed the income and income of claimant
Renukaben is considered only Rs.6,482/- which is permissible
and as per Income Tax Return the income is considered. Hence,
he has requested to dismiss both the present appeals.
6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and going through the record and judgment passed by the
learned Tribunal, it appears that in both the claim petitions the
evidence were recorded and after that the driver of the ST bus
held 100% negligent.
6.1.) It is worthwhile to mention here that the claimant Mahavirbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/248/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
was driving the car and claimant Renukaben i.e. wife of
Mahavirbhai was occupant in the car, hence, she has nothing to
do with the contributory negligence on the part of driver of the
car and even otherwise the Insurance Company or claimant
Mahavirbhai is not impleaded party in MAC Petition No.105 of
2000, she has nothing to do with the alleged argument of
contributory negligence. So far contributory negligent of the
claimant Mahavirbhai is concerned, in MAC Petition No.106 of
2000 the claimant Mahavirbhai has tendered his evidence at
Exhibit 29 and for disability two Doctors were examined at
Exhibit 34 and 53, also produced complaint and panchnama
which is filed against ST bus driver however the driver of ST bus
is not examined by the respondent. In MAC Petition No.105 of
2000 the claimant has tendered her evidence at Exhibit 24 and
for disability three Doctors were examined at Exhibits 29, 44,
and 52 respectively. The complaint is produced at Exhibit 103,
panchnama at Exhibit 104. The said witnesses were examined
but nothing fruitful came on record which suggest that driver of
offending vehicle was not negligent. He was also not stepped in
the witness box and not examined. In cross-examination the
claimant Mahavirbhai has denied that due to his negligence the
alleged incident was occurred. No any specific defence raised
qua contributory negligence and not proved by the Corporation,
hence, based on preponderance or probabilities and evidence on
record and considering panchnama at Exhibit 104 as headlights
of the bus is broken and door of driver side is bent and badly
damaged and bonnet of the car is also damaged, the learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that due to negligence of the
driver of bus the alleged incident took place and complaint being
I-C.R. No.195 of 1999 was registered against the driver of bus
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/248/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
and charge-sheet was also filed against him and came to
conclusion that though the bus being heavy vehicle it was driven
in rash and negligent manner and therefore ST Bus is held 100%
negligent, and the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
in deciding negligence of driver of ST Bus.
7) So far contributory negligence is concerned, the contributory
negligence cannot be presumed and collision on the road did not
inherently indicate the negligence by the driver but negligence
must be proved by the evidence with preponderance of
probabilities as standard, in this regard reference is required to
be drawn in the case of Shrikrishna Kanta Singh Vs. The
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors., Neutral Citation
- 2025 INSC 394, hence, arguments canvassed by the learned
Advocate for the appellant is not acceptable in absence of any
material or evidence on record.
FIRST APPEAL NO.248 OF 2022
(MAC PETITION NO.106 OF 2000)
8) Now coming to the quantum part the learned Tribunal has
considered the evidence produced on record and so far in the
claimant Mahavirbhai is concerned, to prove his disability Dr.
Rupkumar Agarwal was examined at Exhibit 34 who issued
Injury Certificate at Exhibit 35 and case papers and bills at
Exhibits 38 and 39. The claimant was doing business in Kalupur
Cloth Market and he has stated his income as Rs.3 lakhs and
produced books of account. He has produced on record his PAN
Card and Income Tax Return and Registration of Shop under the
Bombay Shop and Establishments Act and Sales Tax Number on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/248/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
record. At the time of accident he was 23 years old and in the
year 2006-07 his income is Rs.1,53,745/- which is considered
monthly Rs.12,812/-. In view of the case of Malarvizhi Vs
United India Insurance Company Ltd., & Anr., reported in
(2020) 1 ACJ 526, the Income Tax Return is a statutory
document on which reliance may be placed. Though it is true
that said Income Tax Return was produced subsequently as the
accident occurred in the year 1999 and IT Return is of the year
2006-07 which is subsequently after 7 to 8 years and up to that
extent there is substance in arguments of the learned Advocate
for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has considered the
income of injured as Rs.1,53,745 per annum which is monthly
Rs.12,812/-.
8.1.) At the same time if we consider his business and he was
engaged in business at the relevant point of time then keeping
in mind guesswork, the income of the claimant is required to be
considered as Rs.9,000/- and in absence of documentary
evidence the learned Tribunal has not considered the future
prospect which as per this Court 40% future prospect is required
to be considered. Therefore, calculating the income of the claimant
Mahavirbhai as Rs.9,000/- and future prospect of 40% =
Rs.3,600/- and net income comes to Rs.12,600/- and considering
that the learned Tribunal has considered disability as 11% and
multiplier of 18 which are just and proper. So far income of
Rs.12,600/- per month is concerned, the Tribunal has considered
income of Rs.12,812/- and therefore considering narrow margin
between both the income this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the amount awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.3,04,344/- towards
actual future loss of income and Rs.12,812/- towards actual loss of
income which are just and proper compensation. Similarly, no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/248/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
interference is required with awarded amount of Rs.57,580/- for
medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- for special diet and transportation,
and Rs.10,000/- for pain shock and suffering.
FIRST APPEAL NO.660 OF 2022
(MAC PETITION NO.105 OF 2000)
9) Now coming to the quantum part the learned Tribunal has
considered the evidence produced on record and so far in the
claimant Renukaben is concerned, to prove her disability three
Doctors were examined who issued Injury Certificates at Exhibit
45, 57 and 58. The claimant was doing business in Kalupur Cloth
Market and as per her Income Tax Return of the year 2007-08
her income was assessed as Rs.77,785/- per year i.e. Rs.6,482/-
per month. Admittedly the said return was subsequently filed in
the year 2007-2008 and the accident was occurred in the year
1999, therefore, as per this Court her income is required to be
considered as Rs.4,500/- and in absence of documentary
evidence the learned Tribunal has not considered the future
prospect which as per this Court 40% future prospect is required
to be considered. Therefore, calculating the income of the claimant
Renukaben as Rs.4,500/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.1,800/-
and net income comes to Rs.6,300/- and considering that the
learned Tribunal has considered disability as 10% and multiplier of
18 which are just and proper. So far income of Rs.6,300/- per
month is concerned, the Tribunal has considered income of
Rs.6,482/- and therefore considering narrow margin between both
the income this Court is not inclined to interfere with the amount
awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.1,39,968/- towards actual future
loss of income and Rs.12,964/- towards actual loss of income which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/248/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
are just and proper compensation. Similarly, no interference is
required with awarded amount of Rs.91,701/- for medical
expenses, Rs.5,000/- for special diet and transportation, and
Rs.10,000/- for pain shock and suffering.
10) In view of above discussion and as narrow margin in amount of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, no interference
is required with the judgment and award dated 20.08.2018,
passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Court
No.6, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Motor Accident
Claim Petition Nos.105 of 2000 and 106 of 2000.
11) Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.
12) Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
