GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs ANILABEN @ ANITABEN VINODBHAI PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4597 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
ANILABEN @ ANITABEN VINODBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 14/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned Motor
th
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & 6 Additional District Judge, Bharuch
in M.A.C.P. No. 168 of 2021, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly
allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.9,07,500/- along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the
claim petition till its realization, as compensation.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal,
as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
i. On 11.04.2021, Mr. Vinodbhai Patel (hereinafter referred
to as the “ deceased ”) was riding one motorcycle bearing
registration No.GJ-16-BQ-7010 at very moderate speed
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
and on the correct side of the road. When he reached
near the place of the accident, original opponent
No.1/respondent No.3 herein came by driving on S.T. bus
bearing registration No.GJ-18-Y-9983, in a rash and
negligent manner and at an excessive speed from the
wrong side, and dashed with the motorcycle driven by the
deceased, thereby causing the vehicular accident. As a
result of the said vehicular accident, the deceased
sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the said
injuries during treatment.
It is the case of the original claimants/respondent Nos.1
ii.
to 2 herein before the learned Tribunal that at the time of
the vehicular accident, the deceased was aged about 50
years and he was employed as a helper in a private firm,
thereby earning Rs.15,000/- per month and in addition to
the said job, he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from
agricultural work. Therefore, the original
claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 2 herein preferred the
Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal seeking
compensation on account of the death of the deceased.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the
Claim Petition, original opponent No.1/respondent No.3
herein – driver of the S.T. bus & original opponent
No.2/appellant herein – Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation filed their Written Statement at Exh.12,
thereby denying the averments made in the Claim
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
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.9,07,500/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as
compensation.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
v.
judgment and award, appellant herein - Corporation has
challenged the impugned judgment and award on the
ground of negligence.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Ms. Sejal K Mandavia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vehemently
submitted that the accident in question had occurred owing to the
negligence of the deceased himself, however, the learned Tribunal has
held the original opponent No.1/respondent No.3 herein - driver of the
S.T. bus solely negligent for causing the accident. She argued that at
the time of the vehicular accident, the deceased was in a drunken
condition and he suddenly tried to overtake the S.T. bus, lost control
and thereby caused the vehicular accident. She further submitted that
in order to prove its defense, the appellant – Corporation has examined
its driver – original opponent No.1/respondent No.3 herein - Mr.
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
Balwantbhai Mohanbhai Patel at Exh.27. The said driver proved on
record that the accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of
the rider of the motorcycle, i.e., the deceased himself. As such, she
argued that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue
of negligence is liable to be modified.
5. Per contra, Ms. Viral N Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Mr. Nishit A Bhalodi, learned counsel for the original
claimants/respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein vehemently argued that the
vehicular accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the
original opponent No.1/respondent No.3 herein - driver of the S.T. bus.
She contended that the driver of the S.T. bus had hit the motorcycle
driven by the deceased from behind. She contended that the driver of
the S.T. bus ought to have maintained sufficient and proper distance to
avoid the vehicular accident. She argued that the driver of the S.T. bus
had failed to maintain proper distance between the motorcycle and the
S.T. bus, resultantly, hit the motorcycle from behind, as such, she
argued that the original opponent No.1/respondent No.3 herein - driver
of the S.T. bus was solely negligent for causing the vehicular accident.
In support of her contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the original claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nishan Singh V. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited through Regional Manager reported
in 2018(6) SCC 765. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original claimants further argued that the FIR came to be lodged
against the driver of the S.T. bus and after conducting investigation, the
police has also filed the charge-sheet against the original opponent
No.1/respondent No.3 herein - driver of the S.T. bus. The driver of the
S.T. bus has also admitted the said fact in his cross-examination. As
such, she argued that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
in holding the original opponent No.1/respondent No.3 herein - driver of
the S.T. bus, solely negligent for causing the vehicular accident.
6. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant – corporation that the deceased was under the influence of
alcohol at the time of the vehicular accident is concerned, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants contended that
the appellant – corporation has not led any evidence on record to prove
its contention, as such, argued that the said contention raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant – corporation is not sustainable.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants
further submitted that at the time of the vehicular accident, the
deceased was working as a helper in a private firm, thereby earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and apart from the said job, he was also
engaged in agricultural work, thereby earning Rs 15,000/- per month.
She further submitted that the income of the deceased could not be
proved on record by leading any cogent evidence. She submitted that in
the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the income, the learned
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per
month, which is much lesser than the minimum wages prevalent at the
time of the accident. She contended that in the absence of any cogent
evidence on income, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the
income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages prevalent
at the time of the vehicular accident, which was Rs.9,495.20/- per
month. She further argued that the deceased was aged about 50 years,
2 months and 25 days at the time of the vehicular accident, therefore,
he falls under the age bracket of 46-50 years for determining the
multiplier. As such, she contended that the learned Tribunal ought to
have applied the multiplier of “13” instead of “11”. In support of her
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
contentions, she has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 3104 and
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in
2017 (16) SCC 680 . Therefore, she prayed that the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal be enhanced and the impugned
judgment and award be modified accordingly.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
- corporation vehemently argued that the original claimants have not
filed any cross-appeal or cross-objections for enhancement, therefore,
contended that their prayer for enhancement of compensation is not
sustainable.
9. 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 appellant – Corporation has challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground of negligence, while the original
claimants/respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein have prayed for modification of
the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum.
ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE
10. So far as the negligence is concerned, after considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Tribunal
has held the original opponent No.1/respondent No.3 herein - driver of
the S.T. bus solely negligent for causing the vehicular accident. It has
been argued on behalf of the appellant - corporation that the deceased
himself was negligent for causing the accident. It emerges from the
records that it is the case of claimants that the accident had occurred
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
owing to the sole negligence of original opponent No.1/respondent No.3
herein - driver of S.T. bus. Claimant No.1 had also stepped into the
witness-box and filed her affidavit in examination-in-chief along with
lines of pleadings, however, in her cross-examination, she admitted that
she was not an eye-witness to the accident. It also emerges from the
record that the FIR came to be filed by one Mr. Sureshbhai Patel. The
said FIR has been proved at Exh.17. After completing investigation, the
police has also filed the charge-sheet against the original opponent
No.1/respondent No.3 herein - driver of the S.T. bus. Moreover, perusal
of the panchnama of the place of the accident transpires that the front
portion of the S.T. bus, i.e., the driver's side was damaged, while the
rear portion of the motorcycle was damaged. Thus, it is apparent that
the S.T. bus has hit the motorcycle driven by the deceased from
behind. In the case of Nishan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
at para no.12, has observed as under:-
“The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been
affirmed by the High Court, by observing that the
evidence was clearly indicative of the fact that the
maruti car was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, which was the cause for accident of this
nature and resulting in death of one of the
passengers in the maruti car. The maruti car was
driven by none other than PW-2 Manjeet Singh. In his
evidence, he has admitted that the subject truck was
running ahead of the maruti car for quite some time
about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the
distance between the truck and maruti car was only
10 - 15 feet. He has also admitted that the law
mandates maintaining sufficient distance between
two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also
not in dispute that the road on which the two vehicles
were moving was only about 14 feet wide. It is
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the
subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged.
In any case, the maruti car which was following the
truck was expected to maintain a safe distance, as
envisaged in Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road
Regulations, 1989, which reads thus:
“ 23. Distance from vehicles in front. The
driver of a motor vehicle moving behind
another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient
distance from that other vehicle to avoid
collision if the vehicle in front should
suddenly slow do the aforesaid judgment
wn or stop.”
The expression ‘sufficient distance’ has not been
defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb
rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of
two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert
collision and to allow the following driver time to
respond. The distance of 10–15 feet between the
truck and maruti car was certainly not a safe distance
for which the driver of the maruti car must take the
blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on
the issue under consideration ought to be against the
claimants.”
11. Further, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant – corporation that the deceased was under the influence of
alcohol at the time of the vehicular accident. Perusal of the records
transpires that no evidence has been led by the appellant – corporation
to prove the said contention. Moreover, the PM Report of the deceased
proved at Exh.24, does not reflect the presence of alcohol. Thus,
considering the totality of facts and circumstances, and having regard
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
to oral as well as documentary evidence proved on record and taking
note of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nishan Singh
(supra), I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in holding the original opponent No.1/respondent
No.3 herein - driver of the S.T. bus solely negligence for causing the
vehicular accident. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned
Tribunal on the issue of negligence is not required to be interfered with
and is accordingly upheld.
QUANTUM
12. It is the case of the original claimants before the learned Tribunal
that at the time of the vehicular accident, the deceased was engaged in
the work of agriculture and was also employed as a helper in a private
firm, thereby earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal,
after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence proved on
record, assessed the income of the deceased at the time of the
vehicular accident as Rs.8,000/- per month. Perusal of the record
transpires that the original claimants have not proved the income of the
deceased by leading any cogent evidence. In the absence of any cogent
evidence to prove the income, the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the vehicular
accident. The accident in question took place on 11.04.2021. At the
relevant point of time, the minimum wages as notified by the State
Government of Gujarat for a skilled worker was Rs.9,495.20/- per
month. Thus, I reassess the income of the deceased at the time of
vehicular accident as Rs.9,500/- per month (i.e., Rs.9,495.20/- rounded
off to Rs.9,500/-).
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
13. It emerges from the records that the deceased was aged about
50 years, 2 months and 25 days at the time of the vehicular accident,
therefore, considering the age of the deceased at the time of the
vehicular accident, the notional monthly income of the deceased is
required to be enhanced by 10% on account of his future prospects, in
view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the
Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, after adding 10% of the notional income
to the monthly income of the deceased, the income of the deceased
would come to the tune of Rs.10,450/- (i.e, Rs.9,500/- plus 10% of
Rs.9,500/-).
14. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was survived by his
widow and child, therefore, in view of the ratio of judgment rendered
by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 1/3rd of
the monthly notional income of the deceased is required to be deducted
on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, after
deducting 1/3rd of the monthly income on account of the personal
expenses of the deceased, the monthly income for calculating the
Future loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,966/- (i.e., Rs.10,450/-
minus 1/3rd of Rs.10,450/-).
15. The deceased was aged about 50 years, 2 months and 25 days at
the time of the vehicular accident, therefore, considering the age of the
deceased at the time of the vehicular accident, he would fall within the
age bracket of 46-50 years, for which the multiplier of “13” is required
to be applied, however, the learned Tribunal had erroneously applied
the multiplier of “11”. Therefore, after applying the multiplier of “13”,
the original claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for a sum of
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
Rs.10,86,696/- (i.e, Rs.6,966/- X 12 months X multiplier of “13”) under
the head of Future Loss of Dependency.
16. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the
conventional heads are not under challenge. As such, the same are not
required to be interfered with and are accordingly maintained.
17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimants
shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sr.
No.
Heads Amount in rupees.
1 Future Loss of
10,86,696/-
Dependency.
2 Loss of Consortium. (+) 96,800/-
3 Loss of Estate. (+) 18,150/-
4 Funeral Expenses. (+) 18,150/-
5 Total Compensation 12,19,796/-
Less : Compensation
already awarded by the
6
(-) 9,07,500 /-
learned Tribunal.
7 Enhanced amount of
3,12,296/-
compensation.
18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimants
herein shall be entitled for an additional compensation to the tune of
Rs.3,12,296/-. 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 claimants shall be entitled to 9% of interest per annum on the
additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
Petition till its realization.
GRANT OF ENHANCEMENT WHERE NO CROSS-APPEAL HAS
BEEN FILED BY THE CLAIMANTS
19. The aforesaid re-assessment of compensation gives rise to a
further issue, as a contention has been raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant – corporation, as to whether an award passed by the
Tribunal can be enhanced in an appeal preferred by the appellant –
corporation, more particulary when the claimants have not filed any
cross-objection or cross appeal. It is settled proposition of law that the
principle of just compensation is not only applicable to the Tribunal, but
also to this appellate Court, as such, the original claimants shall be
entitled to get just and reasonable compensation. Reliance has been
placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Surekha and Ors. v. Santosh and Ors. reported in 2021 (16)
SCC 467, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :-
“By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance
claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the
court should not take hypertechnical approach and ensure
that just compensation is awarded to the affected person
or the claimants.”
20. Thus, I am of the view that the judgment in Surekha (supra)
now holds the field, and this appellate Court is entitled to award just
and reasonable compensation to the claimants by ordering
enhancement of the award, even in the absence of a cross-objection or
cross-appeal.
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4597/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2026
21. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal
stands dismissed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
enhanced and the impugned judgment and award stands modified
accordingly.
22. The appellant - corporation is directed to satisfy the awarded
amount, including additional amount of compensation at the same rate
of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Upon depositing the said
amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
to the original claimants (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due
verification.
23. 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.
24. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN..
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:51 IST 2026