Gujarat High Court
Kundanikaben Wd/O Hiteshkumar Patel vs Rameshbhai Shamalbhai Patel on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12624/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12624 of 2025
==========================================================
KUNDANIKABEN WD/O HITESHKUMAR PATEL & ORS.
Versus
RAMESHBHAI SHAMALBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
MR V B MALIK(5071) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking to quash and set aside the impugned judgment, award,
and order dated 09.12.2023 passed at Exhibit 1 in MACP No. 97
of 2020 (Annexure-A), only to the extent of apportionment of
compensation amongst original claimant Nos. 1 to 5. The
petitioner has also challenged the judgment and order dated
08.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Arvalli at Modasa in Review Application No. 1 of 2025, on the
ground that the apportionment made by the Tribunal is on the
higher side, as the parents of the deceased were not actually
dependent upon the deceased, and further, original claimant
(respondent No. 2 herein) has already expired. Therefore, the
petitioner has prayed that the share apportioned in favour of the
deceased claimant be re-apportioned in favour of the minor.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12624/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
3. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and perusing the record, it appears that MACP No. 97 of
2020 came to be filed by the claimants seeking compensation on
account of the death of Hiteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel, who
happened to be the husband of claimant No. 1, the father of
original claimant Nos. 4 and 5, and the son of original claimant
Nos. 2 and 3. After the filing of the claim petition, the parties
arrived at a settlement, and the matter came to be disposed of in
the Lok Adalat. Subsequently, apportionment was made
pursuant to the order below Exhibit 1 in MACP No. 97 of 2020.
As per the said apportionment, 40% of the total compensation
was awarded in favour of the widow of the deceased,
Kundanikaben w/o Hiteshkumar Patel; 20% was awarded in
favour of the children of the deceased--Vishwaben d/o
Hiteshkumar Patel (10%) and minor Devanshkumar
Hiteshkumar Patel (10%); and the remaining 40% was awarded
in favour of present respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., 20% in favour
of the father of the deceased, Rameshbhai Shamalbhai Patel,
and 20% in favour of the mother of the deceased, late Dahiben
Rameshbhai Patel. However, after the apportionment, a Review
Application came to be filed on the ground that the parents of
the deceased were actually dependent upon the brother of the
deceased and not on the deceased herein. It was therefore
prayed that a proper and equitable apportionment be made in
favour of the son and daughter of the deceased. It further
appears from the record that after passing of the award, the
mother of the deceased, Dahiben Rameshbhai Patel, expired on
29.07.2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12624/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
4. In view of the above, it appears that 20% + 20%
apportionment was made in favour of the parents of the
deceased. Since the mother of the deceased, Dahiben, is no
more, her share has devolved upon her legal heirs. As per Rule,
the share of the deceased claimant is required to be apportioned
amongst her legal heirs, and claimant Nos. 4 and 5 happen to be
the grandchildren of late Dahiben Rameshbhai Patel.
Considering the aforesaid facts and keeping in view that the
actual beneficiaries of the compensation arising from the
untimely death of deceased Hiteshkumar are his children, i.e.,
claimant Nos. 4 and 5, the share of late Dahiben Rameshbhai
Patel is required to be appropriately apportioned in their favour.
5. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in order to ensure
equitable distribution, out of the 20% share originally
apportioned to late Dahiben, an apportionment of 15% is ordered
to be given to claimant Nos. 4 and 5 (children of the deceased
Hiteshkumar), to be distributed equally as 7.5% each. The
remaining 5% of the said 20% share is ordered to be given to
claimant No. 2, Rameshbhai Shamalbhai Patel.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands
disposed of. No order as to costs.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
