LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. MINOR NITIN ARVINDBHAI vs PREMSINGBHAI JIVABHAI KATARIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1077/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240391242013)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1077 of 2013
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. MINOR NITIN ARVINDBHAI & ORS.
Versus
PREMSINGBHAI JIVABHAI KATARIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TULSHI R SAVANI(3070) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 21/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant/s being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
10.5.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.234 of 2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 On 28.3.2011 at about 7:00 a.m., the deceased was going
to his school on bicycle in the correct side of the road, at that
time, the opponent No.1 by driving his truck in full speed, rash
and negligent manner, endangering to human life, collied with
the bicycle of the deceased. As a result of this accident, the
deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it. Legal
heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition claiming
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:41:04 IST 2026
C/FA/1077/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240391242013)
compensation of Rs.3,67,500/-.
2.2 The opponent Nos.1 & 2 on being served appeared
through learned advocate and filed written statement at
Exh.14 denying the averments and allegations made in the
claim petition.
2.3 The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
considering the evidence on record, was pleased to pass the
impugned judgment and award.
2.4 Hence, present First Appeal.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Since, the claim petition was filed u/s 163A of the Act,
the amount of compensation has to be determined on the
basis of the structure formula.
5. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Halder, 2024 JX (SC)
1154, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the
amendment introduced by Section 164 to the Motor Vehicles
Act, being a beneficial piece of legislation, must be given
retrospective effect.
6. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act has been
replaced by Section 164, introducing a fixed compensation of
Rs. 5,00,000/- in death cases, and that the Hon’ble Apex Court
had held that this amendment would apply even where the
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:41:04 IST 2026
C/FA/1077/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240391242013)
accident occurred before the amendment came into force.
Relevant para of the judgment is 6 to 10, which read as
under:-
“6. Reliance was placed on the last line of the
notification, which indicates that the said amendment
would come into force from the date of publication in
the official Gazette, which is 22nd May, 2018. It was
submitted that as the accident had occurred on 11th
December, 2004, the benefit of such amendment could
not be granted to the respondent. In support of this
contention, learned counsel referred to and relied
upon various decisions of this Court in Padma
Srinivasan Vs. Premier Insurance Company
Limited, [(1982) 1 SCC 613]; Shyam Sunder and
Others vs. Ram Kumar and Another, [(2001) 8
SCC 24]; Nasiruddin and Others Vs. Sita Ram
Agarwal, [(2003) 2 SCC 577] and Panchi Devi Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Others, [(2009) 2 SCC
589] .
7. It was further contended that the present case is
covered by the policy under which the payment is
made and the same crystallized on the date the same
was entered into and subsequent developments would
not alter the rights and liabilities of the parties. Thus,
the contention was that the appellant would not be
liable to pay any further than what it was obliged to
pay under the Act prior to coming of the amendment
on 22nd May, 2018.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the High Court has rightly taken a view that it is
merely a procedural amendment which has to be
given retrospective effect and it is nothing substantive
so as to affect the merits of the issue.
9. Having considered the matter, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. With
regard to the judgments of this Court relied upon by
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:41:04 IST 2026
C/FA/1077/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240391242013)
learned counsel for the appellant, having gone
through the same we find that they are
distinguishable from the facts of the present case and
thus, the ratio of those cases would not apply in the
present case.
10. The order of the High Court is well discussed and
we agree with the view taken. We may, however, add
that a beneficial legislation would necessarily entail
the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the
absence of any specific bar to the same. In the
present case, the liability of the appellant-Insurance
Company has not been interfered with. Only the
computational mode and the modality have been
further clarified, which rightly has been noted by the
High Court and accordingly, the claim has been
enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs). As
50% of the compensation amount was stayed by this
Court, the same be paid to the respondent in terms of
the impugned judgment within eight weeks.”
7. Applying the aforesaid dictum, the following order is
passed:
7.1 The appeal filed by the insurance company is partly
allowed. The cross objection is also allowed.
7.2 The judgment of the learned Tribunal is modified to
the extent that the claimant shall be entitled to the fixed
compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, (additional amount of
compensation of Rs.3,45,500/- + Rs.1,54,500/- being
compensation already awarded by the learned Tribunal)
together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the
claim petition till realization.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:41:04 IST 2026
C/FA/1077/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240391242013)
7.3 Opponents are directed to deposit the enhanced
amount of compensation i.e. Rs.3,45,500/- with 7.5% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till realization before
the concerned Tribunal, within a period of nine weeks from the
date of receipt of this order. Rest of the direction(s) of the
Tribunal remain same.
7.4 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest
thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT
/ RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
7.5 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct
the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
8. 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 Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 15:41:04 IST 2026