PATEL JASHIBEN GOVINDBHAI WIFE OF DECD. vs SHAITAN SINGH S/O ARJUN SINGH
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1902 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PATEL JASHIBEN GOVINDBHAI WIFE OF DECD. & ORS.
Versus
SHAITAN SINGH S/O ARJUN SINGH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ARCHAN HIRPARA WITH
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 05/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Patan in M.A.C.P. No.
114 of 2017, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed
the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.5,96,020/-(Rupees
Five Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Twenty Only) along with
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of
the claim petition till realization, as compensation.
2. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the
captioned appeal are summarized as under :-
i. on 22.03.2017, at about 08:00 p.m., deceased
Govindbhai Patel was proceeding on his Activa
bearing Registration No. GJ-2-BA-8583 from
Unjha towards Mahervada on the correct side of
the road and at a moderate speed for the
purpose of dropping his sister-in-law (Bhabhi)-
Savitaben. When he reached near Mangalmurti
Godown, the headlight of vehicles coming from
the opposite direction dazzled his eyes and
consequently, he dashed against the rear side of
Truck bearing Registration No. RJ-22-GA-9229,
which was stationed on the road without any
signal, reflector or parking lights. As a result of
the accident, he sustained grievous head injuries
and other bodily injuries and during the course
of treatment, succumbed to the said injuries.
ii. The notices/summons of the Claim Petition were
duly served upon the opponents. The opponent
no.1chosen not to appear before the learned
Tribunal, however, the opponent no.2 appeared
and filed Written Statements vide Exhs.53,
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
denying the contents of the claim petition and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
iii. Having considered the pleadings of the parties,
the learned Tribunal framed the following issues
at Exh.21, for determination.
i. Whether the applicants prove that the
deceased died in the accident, which
occurred due to rash, careless and
negligent driving of the driver of the
motor vehicle involved in the accident?
ii. What amount of compensation the
applicants are entitled to get and from
whom and at what rate of interest?
iii.What order and award?
iv. Having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, and having
considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.5,96,020/-(Rupees Five
Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Twenty Only) along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from
the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization, as compensation.
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
impugned judgment and award, the claimants -
appellants herein preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Archan Hirpara, learned advocate appearing for the
claimants/appellants, vehemently submitted that the accident
had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the
truck, as the said truck was parked on the road without any
indicator or obstruction to warn oncoming vehicles in gross
violation of Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
However, the learned Tribunal attributed negligence to the
extent of 30% to the deceased himself. It is submitted that the
learned Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the
offending truck was solely negligent for causing the accident.
It is submitted that the FIR came to be lodged against the
driver of the truck and, thereafter, charge-sheet also came to
be filed against him. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to
have concluded that the driver of the truck alone was
responsible for the accident. In support of his submissions,
learned advocate placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Archit Saini & Anr. v. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2018 (3) SCC 365.
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
5. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded a
meagre amount of compensation under the conventional head.
He, therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation under
the conventional head. In support of his contention, he placed
the reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 .
6. On the other hand, Ms.E.Shailja, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-Insurance Company
vehemently submitted that the deceased himself dashed from
the behind with the stationary truck. Therefore, the learned
Tribunal has rightly held the deceased himself contributory
negligent. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the
finding returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of
negligence.
7. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded
just compensation under the conventional head in accordance
to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra). She further submitted that the there is
no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. Therefore,
the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
through the record, i t is to be noted that the claimants-
appellants herein have preferred the captioned appeal on the
ground of negligence a well as on the ground of quantum.
9. So far as negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal,
after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence
on record, came to the conclusion that both the deceased and
the driver of the offending truck were contributorily negligent
in causing the accident. The learned Tribunal held that the
driver of the offending truck was negligent to the extent of
70%, whereas the deceased himself was held negligent to the
extent of 30% for causing the accident.
10. It emerges from the record that the claimants-appellants
herein examined Jasiben Govindbhai Patel and Savitaben.
Jasiben Govindbhai Patel admitted in her cross-examination
that she was not an eye-witness to the accident. Therefore,
her deposition on the aspect of negligence is of no assistance.
However, Savitaben being the pillion rider is an eye-witness to
the incident. She deposed that at the time of the accident, she
was travelling on the scooter as a pillion rider along with the
deceased. She further deposed that the accident took place at
about 7:30 p.m. According to her testimony, the truck was
parked in such a manner that half portion thereof was on the
road and the remaining half portion was off the roadside.
11. A perusal of the documentary evidence viz. FIR,
panchnama and charge-sheet also corroborates the version of
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
the claimants-appellants herein. Thus, the evidence on record
clearly indicates that at the time of the accident, the truck
was parked in such a manner that half portion thereof was on
the road and the remaining half portion was off the roadside,
without any indicator, parking signal or obstruction being
placed so as to caution approaching vehicles and avoid the
accident. The accident took place at about 7:30 p.m.
Therefore, in the absence of any indicator or warning signal, it
would have been difficult for the deceased to notice the truck
parked on the road. The manner in which the truck was
parked was in gross violation of the provisions contained in
Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
12. It is also evident from the record that the Insurance
Company did not examine the driver of the truck in order to
rebut the version put forward by the claimants-appellants.
Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view
that the driver of the truck was solely negligent in causing the
accident, as he had parked the truck on the highway during
night hours without any indicator, parking signal or
obstruction to caution approaching vehicles. Therefore, the
finding recorded by the learned Tribunal attributing
contributory negligence to the deceased is not sustainable in
the eyes of law and deserves to be reversed. Accordingly, it is
held that the driver of the offending truck was wholly
negligent for causing the accident.
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
13. So far as the compensation awarded under the
conventional heads is concerned, the learned Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and a
sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The learned
Tribunal further enhanced the said amounts by 10%. Since the
accident had occurred in the year 2017, the original
claimants-appellants are entitled to a further enhancement of
10% in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of funeral expenses
and a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of loss of
estate. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of
Rs.44,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. It emerges
from the record that the deceased was survived by his widow
and two children. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), all
the claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of
loss of consortium. Hence, accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,45,200/-
is awarded under the head of loss of consortium.
14. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the
claimants shall be entitled for the following compensation:-
Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded in
rupees.
1 Loss of Dependency 7,74,444/-
2 Loss of Estate (+) 18,150/-
3 Funeral Expenses (+) 18,150/-
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
4 Loss of Consortium (+) 1,45,200/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION 9,25,944/-
Compensation awarded by
impugned Judgment and
(-) Rs. 5,96,020/-
Award .
Enhanced amount of
(=) Rs. 3,29,924/-
compensation
15. Thus, in view of the above discussions, the appellant
shall be entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.
3,29,924/- (Rs.9,25,944/- – Rs.5,96,020/-). The learned
Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
Therefore, the claimant shall also be entitled for the same
rate of interest on the additional amount of compensation
from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
16. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal
stands allowed partly and judgment and award is modified to
that extent. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
additional compensation amount along with interest, with the
concerned learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from
today. Upon depositing the said amount of compensation,
learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount of
compensation along with interest to the appellant after due
verification.
17. If any amount is lying deposited in the captioned appeal
with the Registry of this court, the same may be transmitted
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026
C/FA/1902/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
to the concerned learned Tribunal. Records & Proceedings, if
any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal. No
order as to costs.
18. Pending application, if any stands disposed of.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:46:40 IST 2026