NIRUBEN NILESHBHAI TAVIYAD vs SURESHBHAI MAVJIBHAI GARASIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1186/2026 (GJHC240776212025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1186 of 2026
==========================================================
NIRUBEN NILESHBHAI TAVIYAD & ORS.
Versus
SURESHBHAI MAVJIBHAI GARASIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard, learned advocate, Mr. Bhalodi, for the
appellants-claimants and learned advocate, Ms. Pathak, for
opponent No.3.
2. This appeal is filed on the limited issue, where, the
nd
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 2
Additional District Judge, Dahod (in brief, ‘Tribunal’), vide
judgment and award dated 10.03.2023, passed in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 400 of 2012, partly allowed the
said claim petition and while awarding total compensation
of Rs.13,80,777/- for the death of Nileshbhai Mansukhbhai
Taviyad, granted simple interest at the rate of 9% from the
date of the filing of the claim petition till 31.03.2021 and 7%
interest from 01.04.2021, till payment, while excluding the
period between 07.10.2014 to 16.11.2022 from granting any
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1186/2026 (GJHC240776212025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
interest.
3. Since, the facts as well as the amount of compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal are not in dispute and
opponent No.3 – insurance company has accepted the fact
of accident as well as the liability to pay the amount of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, this Court
does not deem it proper to burden the present judgment by
re-stating the facts and other aspects.
4. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and award,
the basis for passing the impugned order, awarding 9%
interest for a particular time period and 7% interest for
other period is not found. Though, learned Tribunal has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court,
rendered in the case of ‘Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Dy. Director
General, Geological Survey of India & Another’ , reported
in (2003) 3 SCC 148, and has passed the order of interest in
two different figures, without referring to any evidence. In
other words, split application of rate of interest is not
recognized by any settled proposition of law. The calculation
of interest at 9% for the initial period and at 7% for
subsequent period is not an acceptable approach of the
Tribunal in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of ‘Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Aminaben Rahimbhai Kadiwala’ , reported in 2003 ACJ
1096. In fact, granting of interest is an idea to compensate
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1186/2026 (GJHC240776212025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
the claimant for the amount, which he did not get at the
time of road accident.
4.1 The second issue, which is under challenge in this
petition, is exclusion of period from 07.10.2014 to
16.11.2022 from grant of any interest. What transpires is
that the learned Tribunal by passing the order below
Exhibit-1, Dated: 07.10.2014, closed the right of the
appellants – claimants from getting interest from the date of
filing of the claim petition, i.e. from 07.10.2014. I fail to
understand, as to how and under what circumstances, the
learned Tribunal came to pass such kind of a general order
of closing right of the appellants-claimants to claim interest
from a particular date, especially, without there being any
application by the insurance company or any contention
being raised to that effect and in absence of framing any
issue on that particular date, on which the said order was
passed, i.e. on 07.10.2014.
4.2 Records and proceedings of the claim petition indicates
that the issues were framed on 26.10.2021 vide Exhibit-10
and on the very same day, insurance company filed an
application vide Exhibit-11, seeking adjournment to file
vakalatnama, which indicates that the insurance company
appeared in the matter, only after framing of the issues.
Exhibit-14 indicates that the insurance company filed an
application to re-open the right to file written-statement,
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1186/2026 (GJHC240776212025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
after framing of the issues and written-statement comes on
the record. Application under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act was filed vide Exhibit-26 on 26.10.2021 and on
the very same day, learned advocate appearing for the
appellants-claimants filed the list for documentary evidence
vide Exhibit-17. Then one adjournment was sought by the
appellants-claimants and then, vide Exhibits-20,
immediately on the next date of hearing the appellants-
claimants have filed pursis. Thus, there is no delay on the
part of the appellants-claimants in contesting the claim
petition. It was the insurance company, who bothered to
appear only after framing of the issues and filed the written-
statement. Thereafter, it has also filed an application under
Section 170 of the MV Act. In view of the passing of the
order dated 07.10.2014 to close the right of the claimants to
claim interest by the Tribunal is totally an unacceptable
approach. The contention that the order passed above
Exhibit-1 on 07.10.2014 is not contested by the claimants
can be met with by referring to Section 105 of the CPC,
1908, which permits the Court to correct any error or defect
or any irregularity affecting the decision of the case during
the appeal proceedings.
4.3 In the case of ‘ Vidhya Kakkar & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. ’, reported in 1989 ACJ
1088, the Delhi High Court held that the tribunal should
grant interest from the date of application, unless the
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:46 IST 2026
C/FA/1186/2026 (GJHC240776212025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
claimant is responsible for delaying the final disposal of the
case. In view of the above as well as taking into
consideration the statutory provision of awarding interest,
set out in Section 171 of the MV Act, this Court does not
approve finding of the learned Tribunal to grant interest in
split as well as excluding the time period between
07.10.2014 to 16.11.2022.
5. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed and the
impugned judgment and award, granting interest at the
rate of 7% from 01.04.2021, till payment, while excluding
the period between 07.10.2014 to 16.11.2022, is quashed
and set aside to that extent, i.e. the impugned judgment
and award is modified to the extent that the appellants-
claimants shall be entitled to get compensation of
Rs.13,80,777/- along with simple interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till
realization. Rest of the judgment and award dated
10.03.2023 is kept in tact. R&P be sent back, forthwith.
Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:46 IST 2026