[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Vitthalbhai Shankarbhai Rathod on 27 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4166/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4166 of 2025
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
VITTHALBHAI SHANKARBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-GSRTC
against the judgment and award dated 07.08.2025 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals at Halol in
MACP No.2592 of 2017.
2. Heard learned advocate for the appellant.
3. The facts of the case are that on 23.02.2015 at about 01:00
hours, at Panorama Cross Road on Sathrota Road within the
jurisdiction of Halol Police Station, District Panchmahals, the
original claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle
No.GJ-17-AQ-8808, which was being ridden by opponent No.4
slowly and carefully on the correct side of the road. When the
motorcycle was being stopped at the said cross road, opponent
No.1, driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at an
excessive speed, lost control of the vehicle and dashed against
the motorcycle, as a result of which the claimant was thrown
onto the road and sustained grievous injuries to his right leg and
head, including multiple fractures. The injured claimant
thereafter filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the
injuries sustained; however, during the pendency of the petition,
he expired on 06.11.2023 after a considerable lapse of time.
Consequently, his legal heirs were brought on record and are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4166/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
pursuing the claim for compensation.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
appeal has been filed mainly on the ground of contributory
negligence and argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly
fastened 100% liability upon the ST bus driver. It was further
contended that, in the absence of proof of disability and when
the deceased had died a natural death, the learned Tribunal
erred in awarding compensation without any post-mortem report
or material establishing a nexus between the accident and the
death. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted.
5. On perusal of the record, it appears that the accident took
place on 23.02.2015, the disability certificate was issued on
17.06.2023, and thereafter the claimant died due to natural
causes. Hence, the question does not arise of treating the case as
a fatal accident claim. The learned Tribunal awarded
Rs.1,67,589/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of estate, totaling Rs.2,17,589/- in favour of the
claimant/deceased.
6. So far as the contention regarding negligence is concerned,
the claimant was a pillion rider and had no role in contributory
negligence. Moreover, in the connected matter being MACP
No.2591 of 2017, the issue of negligence has already been
adjudicated and has attained finality. Applying the principle of
res judicata, as laid down in United Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Laljibhai Hamirbhai reported in 2007 (1) GLR 633, no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4166/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
interference is warranted and no ground is made out to admit
the appeal on the issue of negligence.
7. Further, with regard to the quantum, it is evident that the
accident occurred in the year 2015 and the claimant expired
after about eight years and five months due to natural causes.
Even if the claimant had suffered injuries, under Section 140 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, he would have been entitled to
compensation on the principle of no-fault liability at the relevant
point of time. Apart from that, had any evidence been led by the
legal representatives, compensation for the said intervening
period could have been considered.
8. Considering the notional income also, the learned Tribunal
awarded only the actual medical expenses of Rs.1,67,589/- and
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate. In view of the aforesaid facts,
it appears that adequate compensation has been granted and no
interference is required on the grounds raised in the appeal
memo. Even otherwise, considering the smallness of the amount
involved, this Court is not inclined to admit the appeal.
9. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed at the admission
stage. However, it is clarified that this dismissal shall not be
treated as res judicata or constructive res judicata for
determination of the quantum in any other proceedings.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
