DHURABHAI GOVINDBHAI ROHIT vs JATINBHAI BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1864/2024 (GJHC240256342024) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1864 of 2024
==========================================================
DHURABHAI GOVINDBHAI ROHIT & ANR.
Versus
JATINBHAI BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. AAMIR S PATHAN(7142) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. On 5.12.2025, the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed
following order:-
“Pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2024, the
coordinate Bench of this Court stayed further
implementation and execution of the impugned
judgment and award on condition that the appellant
shall deposit entire decreetal amount before the
learned Tribunal within eight weeks from 25.11.2024
alongwith principal amount, interest and cost.
Today, learned advocate Mr. H.M. Modi appearing for
the respondent has submitted that till date the
appellant has not complied with the said order.
In view of above, as it was clearly mentioned in the
order dated 25.11.2024 by the coordinate Bench that
Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2024 shall be
treated as dismissed if the appellant fails to comply
with the order dated 25.11.2024, stay on further
implementation and execution of the impugned
judgment and award is hereby vacated forthwith and
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:45:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1864/2024 (GJHC240256342024) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2024 be treated
as dismissed.”
2. Learned advocate for the appellants would submit that
no decretal amount has been deposited by the appellants. It
is in these circumstances, this Court has taken up the appeal
for final hearing.
3. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”) by the appellant/s
challenging the judgment and order dated 29.2.2024 passed
in MACP No. 108 of 2018, whereby the learned Tribunal
granted compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/- with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till
realization.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
4.1 On 25.08.2017, the claimant was going home by riding
his Discover Motorcycle in the sim of Sevasi - Bhayli road on
his correct side with moderate speed at that time one Tractor
bearing registration No.GJ.02.CA.7133 came from Priya
Talkies road, being driven by opponent No.1 in rash and
negligent manner, when he reached near place of occurrence
i.e. near Dakshina Murti Vedic Patha Shala, on Sevasi road,
the Tractor dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant
thereby causing accident due to which the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was
taken to Avdhoot Neurosurgical Hospital, Alkapuri, Vadodara
and was admitted as indoor patient and was treated for
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:45:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1864/2024 (GJHC240256342024) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
several fractures, injuries on his face, mouth head and left
side of body and on left hand and eye. It is submitted that, he
had incurred the expenditure for medical treatment and
medicines. The claimant has further pleaded that, at the time
of accident he was aged about 39 years and he was qualified
Civil Engineer and was working as Supervisor with Neptune
Realty Private Limited, Manager Majmahuda, Vadodara and
was getting Rs.35,069/- salary per month and due to the
grievous injuries sustained in the accident he was not able to
attend his duty for long period. He has sustained permanent
disability as a consequence of injuries sustained in the
accident and he is not able to perform his work as before and
as such he has suffered future economic loss. The claimant
has also claimed the expenditure incurred for special diet,
transportation and attendant charges. The claimant has
further stated that he has suffered mental and physical pain
and shock due to injuries sustained in the accident. In view of
the above grounds, the claimant has claimed Rs.21,00,000/- as
compensation under various heads from the opponents
together with interest and proportionate costs.
4.2 The opponent Nos.1 and 2 having served, appeared
through learned advocate and filed written statement at
Exh.22 and denied the claim petition in toto.
4.3 The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, was
pleased to pass judgment and award as stated herein above.
4.4 Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred present
First Appeal.
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:45:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1864/2024 (GJHC240256342024) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
6. The solitary submission of learned advocate for the
appellants is that the Appellant No. 1 had been acquitted in
the criminal case connected with the accident. Yet, the
learned Tribunal fastened the liability upon the appellant No.1
and consequently, upon appellant No.2 to pay the amount of
compensation. It was further submitted that the claimant had
not led evidence sufficient to prove negligence on the part of
Appellant No. 1, the driver and therefore, the learned
Tribunal has committed serious error in fastening the liability
upon the appellants to pay the compensation.
7. Per contra , learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appearing
for the claimant submits to pass necessary orders in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties, I may refer to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 599 ,
whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Claim Petitions
operate in entirely distinct legal realms, as the degree of
“culpable rashness” required under Section 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) is significantly higher than
civil negligence under the law of torts. The findings,
quashment, or acquittals in Criminal Court cannot control or
dictate the outcome of MACT proceedings, which must be
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:45:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1864/2024 (GJHC240256342024) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
evaluated independently on civil standards.
9. In the present case, the claimant led evidence in form of
copy of complaint and FIR at Exhs.31 and 32 respectively,
panchnama of the scene of offence at Exh.33 and copy of
charge sheet at Exh.34. These documents, at first blush,
proves the case that appellant No.1 – driver of the offending
vehicle was negligent in causing the road accident. In view
of above, the contention raised by Learned advocate for the
appellants fails.
10. Resultantly, present First Appeal fails and stands
dismissed.
11. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 15:45:40 IST 2026