[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Laljibhai Bhanabhai Panchala on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4116/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4116 of 2025
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4186 of 2025
============================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
LALJIBHAI BHANABHAI PANCHALA & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
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. The First Appeal No.4116 of
2025 arises out of MAC Petition No.57 of 2023 filed on account
of death of Surekhaben Kishanbhai Panchala, by her legal heirs
and the First Appeal No.4186 of 2025 arises out of MAC Petition
No.58 of 2023 filed on account of death of Kishanbhai Laljibhai
Panchala, by his legal heirs.
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
and award dated 22.07.2025, passed by learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Main), Amreli, (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.57 of
2023 and 58 of 2023, the appellant - opponent no.2 therein
preferred both the appeals under Section 173 of 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4116/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
3) It is the case of the original claimants that on 10.03.2023 the
deceased Surekhaben Kishanbhai Panchala was going from Nava
Giriya Village to Amreli on Discover Motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.GJ-03-DL-3599 as a pillion rider which was driven by her
husband deceased Kishanbhai Laljibhai Panchala. When they
reached near Airport on Chittal Road at Amreli at around 10:00
am at that time the opponent no.1 came driving ST Bus bearing
Reg. No.GJ-18-Z-6963 of Fatepar - Jamnagar route owned by
the opponent no.2 - appellant herein, at full speed in rash and
negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the
deceased and as a result of which both the deceased sustained
grievous injuries. They were taken to different Hospitals but as
the injuries were serious both succumbed to the same during
their treatment. An FIR No.11193004230152 of 2023 was
registered with Amreli Police Station. Therefore, the original
claimants have filed MAC Petitions seeking compensation. After
appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned
Tribunal was pleased to allow both the claim petitions.
4) The appeals are 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 considering the negligence of ST Bus
without considering FIR and panchnama and has not assigned
any cogent reasons while holding only 20% negligence of the
rider of motorcycle. The Tribunal ought to have appreciate that
no eye witness to the accident was examined by the claimants.
Hence, he has requested to admit the present appeals as
deceased motorcyclist was negligent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4116/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
5) Perusing the impugned common judgment it reveals that the
appellant - Corporation has filed written statement at Exhibit 19
and denied the negligence and income of the deceased and
further stated that the alleged accident was occurred due to
sheer negligence on the part of the deceased Kishanbhai being
rider of the motorcycle and denied the involvement of ST Bus in
the alleged accident. In order to prove the claim the claimants of
the respective petition have tendered their evidence and also
produced the complaint at Exhibit 38, panchnama at Exhibit 39,
inquest panchnama at Exhibit 40, post-mortem reports at
Exhibits 31 and 41. 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 petitions on the basis of
preponderance of probability. As per the case and evidence
produced on record on 10.03.2023 the deceased Surekhaben
Kishanbhai Panchala was going from Nava Giriya Village to
Amreli on Discover Motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-03-DL-3599
as a pillion rider which was driven by her husband deceased
Kishanbhai Laljibhai Panchala in slow speed on right side of the
road while obeying traffic rules. When they reached near Airport
on Chittal Road at Amreli at around 10:00 am at that time the
opponent no.1 came driving ST Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-Z-
6963 of Fatepar - Jamnagar route owned by the opponent no.2
- appellant herein, at full speed in rash and negligent manner
and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased and as a result
of which both the deceased sustained grievous injuries. In this
regard, the claimants have produced documentary evidence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4116/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
record as per which the complaint is filed by Shivabhai i.e.
brother of the deceased Kishanbhai against the driver of ST Bus,
though Shivabhai had narrated the facts of the accident but he is
not an eye witness of the accident. Further, panchnama at
Exhibit 39 revealed that panchas have very specifically recorded
registration number of both the vehicles and also described the
width of the road as 20 feet. It was also revealed that there was
head-on collision between both the vehicles and front portion of
both the vehicles were found damaged. In the alleged accident
both the drivers of the vehicles failed to perform their obligatory
duty. Notably, the driver of the ST bus had seen the accident
with his bare eyes, however, for the reasons best known to him
he did not step in the witness box nor the appellant herein has
tried to examine the driver of ST bus as witness in order to rebut
the evidence of the claimants or tried to prove negligence of the
motorcyclist and hence adverse inference was drawn against
them. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any
error and after appreciating oral as well as documentary
evidence on record has rightly opined contributory negligence of
both the drivers i.e. 80% of driver of ST Bus and 20% of rider of
motorcycle i.e. deceased Kishanbhai Panchala.
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.
7) Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed at the admission
stage.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
