DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER- MEHSANA vs MUNNI SULTANSINGH GURJAR THRO'MUNNI SULTANSINGH GURJAR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2368/2013 (GJHC240397062013) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2368 of 2013
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 136 of 2013
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2368 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER- MEHSANA
Versus
MUNNI SULTANSINGH GURJAR THRO'MUNNI SULTANSINGH GURJAR &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 8
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is
at the instance of GSRTC challenging the judgment order dated
17.01.2013 passed in MACP No.969 of 1996, by which learned
City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad was pleased to grant
the compensation of Rs. 11,21,000/- with 7.5% annual interest
from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realization.
2. By order dated 04.09.2013, the appeal was admitted. The
claimants have filed Cross Objection which was admitted on
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 17:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/2368/2013 (GJHC240397062013) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
14.10.2013. The learned advocate representing claimants has
been elevated to the Bench; therefore, advocate notice was
issued to the claimants, but those notice were not served and
returned with the remarks ‘insufficient address’
3. The claimants who are legal representatives of the
deceased Sultan Singh Gurjar, filed claim petition under section
166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakh with 12%
interest from the date of the filing claim petition till realization
inter-alia on the ground that the deceased Sultan Singh was
riding loading tempo No.GJ-18-U-4316 on 06.09.2006 from Kadi
after loading the oil tines to deliver the same. When he reached
near Ghago cross road going towards village Gojariya, he was
dashed from behind by ST bus No.number GJ-18-V-9255 driven
by opponent No.1. He was firstly taken to the Civil Hospital,
Mehsana but was declared dead. The FIR of the incident was
registered with Kadi Police Station vide C.R. No.I-214 of 2006.
4. It is claimed that the deceased Sultan Singh was 36 years
old. He was hale and healthy and was earning Rs. 8,000/- to
9,000/- per month by driving loading tempo. Amongst
claimants, claimant No.1 was widow, claimant Nos.2 to 5 were
children and claimant no.6 and 7 were parents. On this factual
grounds claim petition was filed. Since notice was issued in the
claim filed by the claimant, opponent No.1 despite being served
did not come forward to file reply. Opponent No.2 filed reply at
Exh.15-A and denied the negligence of the driver of the ST bus,
and further mount the liability upon the deceased Sultan Singh
in causing the road accident.
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 17:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/2368/2013 (GJHC240397062013) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
5. The learned Tribunal framed issues at Exh.16 and referred
to and analyzed the evidence on record to assess the
contributory negligence of the deceased to 10% and granted the
compensation in aforesaid terms.
6. Being aggrieved, the ST Corporation has filed this appeal,
and claimants have filed Cross Objection.
7. The ST Corporation mainly filed the appeal on the ground
of lesser percentage of contributory negligence attributed to the
claimant, whereas the claimant filed the Cross Objection to remit
the contributory negligence attributed to the deceased.
8. Having heard learned advocate Mr. Raval appearing for the
ST Corporation, the fact emerging from the evidence remains
that accident took place between loading rickshaw and ST bus
driven by the opponent. ST bus has dashed the loading rickshaw
from behind.
9. The issue of contributory negligence is discussed by the
learned Tribunal in para 13 of the impugned judgment and
recorded that the deceased has suddenly taken right turn,
whereby ST Bus driver could not avoid the collision, and as such
accident took place. What further appears from the impugned
judgment that the ST bus driver has not filed any written
statement denying the claim petition. His deposition though has
been led by the ST Corporation, but it is believed to be
deposition of interested witness. The basic finding recorded by
the learned Tribunal to attribute 90% negligence to the ST bus
driver, is that ST bus driver was trying to overtake the tempo
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 17:45:45 IST 2026
C/FA/2368/2013 (GJHC240397062013) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
ignoring the fact that width of the road is 10 feet only, and at the
time of accident when he was overtaking the loading tempo, no
other vehicle was coming from the opposite side. These factual
aspects has been considered by the learned Tribunal to attribute
to 90% contributory negligence to the ST Bus driver and 10%
contributory negligence has been attributed to the deceased on
the ground that the deceased was required to take necessary
steps or care to avoid the mishap. Moreover, it's a case where
deposition of one of the driver of the offending vehicle has been
examined.
10. In view of above, accordingly this Court, the learned
Tribunal has rightly assessed the inter-se contributory
negligence between the driver of two offending vehicles. Hence,
the Appeal as well as Cross Objection does not merit
11. For the foregoing reasons, First Appeal and Cross
Objection deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, they are
dismissed. Impugned judgment and award is confirmed. Record
and proceedings, if any, be send back to learned Tribunal
forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 17:45:45 IST 2026