HARDIK GOPALBHAI BUDDHDEV vs BHURABHAI BHOJABHAI TARAKHALA-MER
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 984 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HARDIK GOPALBHAI BUDDHDEV
Versus
BHURABHAI BHOJABHAI TARAKHALA-MER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 24/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 06.10.2017 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gir-Somnath at Veraval in M.A.C.P. No.
195 of 2007, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim
Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.84,875/- along with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation, after deducting 30% of the total awarded
compensation on account of the negligence of the claimant/appellant
herein.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal,
as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
i. On 01.01.2007, original Claimant/appellant herein – Mr.
Hardik Gopalbhai was travelling as a pillion rider towards
Veraval in a motorcycle driven by his father – Mr. Gopalbhai.
The said motorcycle was being driven at very moderate
speed and on the correct side of the road. The claimant’s
brother, minor Hiren was also travelling in the said
motorcycle as pillion rider. In the meantime, original
opponent No.1/respondent No.1 herein came by driving one
S.T. bus bearing registration No.GJ-18-V-4966 in a very rash
and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, and
dashed with the motorcycle in which the claimant/appellant
herein was travelling from behind, thereby causing the
vehicular accident. As a result of the said vehicular accident,
father of the claimant/appellant - Mr. Gopalbhai and his
minor brother – Hiren sustained grievous injuries and they
succumbed to the said injuries, while the original
claimant/appellant herein suffered serious injuries in the said
accident.
ii. It is the case of the original claimant/appellant herein before
the learned Tribunal that at the time of the vehicular
accident, he was a minor aged about 11 years. It is the also
case of the claimant/appellant that he has sustained
grievous injuries and sustained permanent partial disability
of 10% in the vehicular accident in question. Therefore, the
original claimant/appellant herein had preferred the Claim
Petition before the learned Tribunal against original
opponent No.1/respondent No.1 herein – driver of S.T.bus
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
and Original opponent No.2/respondent No.2 herein - owner
of S.T. bus, seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.4,00,000/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim
Petition, original opponents/respondents herein filed their
Written Statement at Exh.13, thereby denying the averments
made in the Claim Petition, and in brief, prayed for dismissal
of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record and the
submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the
respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed
the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.84,875/- along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of
filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, original claimant/appellant herein have
challenged the impugned judgment and award on the
ground of negligence as well as quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. At the outset, Mr. Hiren M Modi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted
that at the time of the vehicular accident, the original
claimant/appellant herein was a minor aged about 11 years and he
sustained the permanent partial disability of 10%. The learned Tribunal
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
had assessed the disability of the claimant/appellant at 5%. He
contended that considering the fact that the claimant/appellant herein
was a minor and had sustained permanent disability in the vehicular
accident, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a lumpsum
amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of Pain and
suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and
physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts, etc., and loss
of amenities of life on account of permanent disability, in accordance
with the ratio of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited. & Anr. reported in 2014 (14) SCC
396. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for
the original claimant/appellant herein contended that just compensation
be awarded to the original claimant/appellant herein.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant herein vehemently
submitted that at the time of the vehicular accident, the
claimant/appellant was travelling in a motorcycle driven by his father as
a pillion rider, as such, no negligence can be attributed to the claimant/
appellant herein, however, the learned Tribunal has erroneously
deducted 30% from the total awarded amount on account of the
negligence of the claimant/appellant herein. He contended that the said
deduction of 30% on account of negligence is not sustainable and
submitted that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the
issue of negligence is required to be set aside. He prayed that the
impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
6. Per contra, Mr. H S Munshaw, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.2 - Gujarat S.T. Corporation vehemently
submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the oral as
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
well as documentary evidence available on record and has rightly
assessed the issue of negligence and has rightly deducted 30% from
the total awarded amount on account of the negligence of the claimant/
appellant herein. He contended that the findings returned by the
learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence requires no reconsideration
and contended that the same be upheld.
7. So far as the quantum is concerned, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.2 - Corporation contended that the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Master
Mallikarjun (supra) is not applicable to this case. He further
contended that the learned Tribunal had awarded just compensation
under all the heads, as such, the captioned appeal preferred by the
original claimant/appellant is devoid of any merits and contended that
the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to
be noted that the original claimant/appellant herein have challenged the
impugned judgment and award on the ground of negligence as well as
quantum.
NEGLIGENCE
9. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, it is the case of
the original claimant/appellant herein that at the time of the vehicular
accident, he was a pillion rider in the motorcycle driven by his deceased
father, as such, contended that the deduction of 30% of the total
compensation on account of negligence is erroneous. It is to be noted
that issue of negligence involved in the vehicular accident in question
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
has already been discussed in detail by this Court in First Appeal No.983
of 2018, wherein this Court after considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence proved on record, rejected the findings returned
by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence, and held the original
opponent No.1/respondent No.1 herein - driver of the S.T.bus solely
negligent for causing the vehicular accident in question. Even
otherwise, the reduction of 30% on account of negligence of the
claimant/appellant cannot sustain, as contributory negligence cannot be
fastened on the pillion rider. Reliance in this regard may be placed on
the Hon’ble Apex Court’s observations in SLP (C) NO. 22599/2024
titled as Yashwant Krishna Kumbar v. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd ., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court while adjudicating an appeal filed by the pillion rider on the
ground that contributory negligence of 50% was attributed by the
Tribunal and High Court, held as under:-
“16. In cases where contributory negligence is
sought to be attributed to a pillion rider in a motor
vehicle accident, the burden squarely lies on the party
alleging such negligence to establish, by cogent
material, that any act or omission on the part of the
pillion rider contributed to the occurrence of the
accident. In the absence of such proof, no finding of
contributory negligence can be sustained against a
pillion rider.
17. This Court is therefore of the considered view
that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in
reducing the compensation by 50% on the ground of
alleged contributory negligence of the claimant. The
insurer, on whom the burden squarely rested, led no
evidence to establish even remote negligence
attributable to the claimant. Consequently, the finding
of contributory negligence cannot be sustained and is
liable to be set aside, restoring the claimant’s
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
entitlement to the full measure of compensation
determined in accordance with law.”
(emphasis added)
10. Thus, the learned Tribunal had committed a grave error by
deducting 30% of the compensation on account of negligence.
Accordingly, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue
of negligence is set aside and the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2 on the issue of negligence is
rejected.
QUANTUM
11. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the
claimant/appellant herein was a minor aged about 11 years. It is also
not in dispute that the claimant/appellant herein has sustained
permanent disability in the vehicular accident. Thus, there is no dispute
regarding the minority and the disability sustained by the
claimant/appellant herein. Thus, the case of the claimant/appellant
herein is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun (supra). In the
case of Master Mallikarjun (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at para
12 had observed as under:-
“Though it is difficult to have an accurate
assessment of the compensation in the case of
children suffering disability on account of a motor
vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant
factors, precedents and the approach of various
High Courts, we are of the view that the
appropriate compensation on all other heads in
addition to the actual expenditure for treatment,
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above
10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs;
upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and
above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For
permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs.1
lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to
take different yardstick………...”
12. Coming to the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the claimant/
appellant herein was a minor and had sustained permanent disability in
the vehicular accident. Therefore, in view of the ratio of judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Master
Mallikarjun (supra), a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is hereby awarded under
the head of Pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in
future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and
discomforts, etc., and loss of amenities of life on account of permanent
disability.
13. Further, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/-
under the head of Medical expenses. The learned Tribunal had awarded
the said amount on the basis of the evidence adduced by the original
claimant/appellant herein on record. Hence, the compensation awarded
under this head is not required to be interfered with and is accordingly
maintained.
14. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the original
claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for the following amount of
compensation:
Sr. No. Head Amount in rupees
Pain and suffering already undergone and
1
1,00,000/-
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
to be suffered in future, mental and
physical shock, hardship, inconvenience,
and discomforts, etc., and loss of
amenities of life on account of permanent
disability.
2 Medical expenses. (+) 90,000/-
3 Total Compensation 1,90,000/-
Less : - Compensation already awarded
4
by the learned Tribunal. (-) 84,875/-
5 Enhanced amount of Compensation Rs.1,05,125/-
15. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original
claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled for an additional
compensation to the tune of Rs.1,05,125/-. The learned Tribunal has
awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the Claim Petition till realization. The said rate of interest is maintained;
accordingly, the original claimant/appellant herein shall be entitled to
9% of interest per annum on the additional amount of compensation
from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
16. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and
award stands modified to the aforesaid extent and accordingly, the
captioned appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
17. The respondent No.2 - Corporation is directed to satisfy the
award, including the additional amount of compensation, along with
interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall
disburse the entire awarded amount to the original claimant/appellant
herein (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026
C/FA/984/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
18. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this
Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith.
Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal
concerned. No order as to costs.
19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jun 30 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 30 15:03:48 IST 2026