BHIKHABHAI CHHOTALAL PRAJAPATI vs MATHURJI KARANJI THAKOR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/379/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 379 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 380 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 381 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHIKHABHAI CHHOTALAL PRAJAPATI & ANR.
Versus
MATHURJI KARANJI THAKOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR C S SHUKLA(7549) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 20/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. All the three appeals have arisen out of the vehicular
accident that took place on 30.05.2006, wherein Ronak
Prakashchandra Prajapati, Sudhaben @ Smitaben
Prakashchandra Prajapati and Ashishkumar Prakashchandra
Prajapati succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claim
petitions being MACP No.187 of 2006, MACP No.188 of 2006 and
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 13:09:47 IST 2026
C/FA/379/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
MACP No.189 of 2006 came to be filed seeking the
compensation.
2. The Captioned appeals are preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 23.01.2015, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor
Accident Claim Petition Nos.187 of 2006, 188 of 2006 and 189 of
2006, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed all the
claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs.54,500/- in each of the
claim petitions along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till its
realization.
3. The succinct facts which led to the filing of the captioned
appeal are that on 30.05.2006, at about 12:30 hours, Ronak
Prakashchandra Prajapati, Sudhaben @ Smitaben
Prakashchandra Prajapati and Ashishkumar Prakashchandra
Prajapati were travelling on the Hero Honda Splendor bearing
registration No.GJ-7-AK-8499 which was being driven by
Prakashchandra Prajapati at a moderate speed and on the
correct side of the road. When they reached near the place of
accident, in the meantime, the driver of S T Bus bearing
registration No.GJ-18-V-6612 came by driving it from the
opposite side, at an excessive speed, in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger the human life and dashed into the
motorcycle of Prakashchandra Prajapati. As a result of the said
accident, all the deceased sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the said injuries.
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 13:09:47 IST 2026
C/FA/379/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
3.1. Having been served with the notice of claim petitions, the
opponent Nos.2 & 3 appeared and filed their Written Statements
vide Exhibits-10 & 56 respectively, thereby denying the
averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of
the claim petition.
3.2. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, oral as well
as documentary evidence on record and the submissions
canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed all the claim petitions and awarded
a sum of Rs.54,500/- in all the claim petitions along with the
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petitions till its realization.
3.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgments and awards, the appellants (in all the captioned
appeals) preferred the captioned appeals on the ground of
quantum.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
5. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the original claimants/appellants in all the three appeals
vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded a
meagre amount of compensation. He further submitted that all
the claim petitions came to be filed under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
Motor Vehicles Act came to be amended and a new Section 164
has been inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act. He further
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 13:09:47 IST 2026
C/FA/379/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
submitted that as per the provisions of newly amended section,
the claimants are entitled to get the compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- in each appeal.
6. Per contra , Mr. C. S. Shukla, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of respondent No.2- S. T. Corporation Limited
submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded just
compensation in all the three claim petitions. He further
submitted that the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act
cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the captioned
appeals are liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr. V. C. Thomas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent No.3- Insurance Company vehemently submitted
that the Insurance Company has been exonerated by the learned
Tribunal from satisfying the award. He further submitted that
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the captioned appeals
are liable to be dismissed.
8. In rebuttal, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate for the
original claimants/appellants in all the appeals vehemently
submitted that provisions of Section 164 can be made applicable
retrospectively. In support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Urmila
Halder , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983 . Having placed
reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, he submitted that the
captioned appeals are liable to be allowed.
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 13:09:47 IST 2026
C/FA/379/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
9. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the
record, it is to be noted that the claimants/appellants in all
three appeals have challenged the impugned judgment and
award on the ground of quantum.
10. So far as quantum is concerned, learned advocate for the
claimants/appellants has argued that the claimants are entitled
to get the lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in each
appeal. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the
proceedings, the Motor Vehicles Act came to be amended and a
new Section 164 was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act and the
same is reproduced here-in-below for the ease of reference:-
“164. Payment of compensation in case of death or
grevious hurt, etc.-
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in
any other law for the time being in force or instrument
having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle
or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the
case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident
arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation,
of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two
and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the
legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1),
the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish
that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the
claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or
neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the
vehicle concerned or of any other person.
(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an
accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle,
compensation has been paid under any other law for
the time being in force, such amount of compensation
shall be reduced from the amount of compensation
payable under this section.”
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 13:09:47 IST 2026
C/FA/379/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
11. Scanning the provisions of Section 164, it is evident that
the provisions of Section 164 empowers the Court/Tribunal to
award a lump-sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation
on account of death in a vehicular accident to the legal
representatives of the deceased.
12. Thus, in view of the Section 164, the claimants/appellants
are entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a compensation. As
to whether Section 164 can be made applicable retrospectively is
concerned, the issue is no more res-integra and the same has
been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Urmila
Halder ( supra ), the relevant paragraph of which has been
reproduced here-in-below:-
“4. The short point for consideration before this
Court is whether the amendment in Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect
by a Gazette Notification on 22nd May, 2018, would
relate to an accident which had occurred prior to the
said date.
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.”
13. Thus, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Urmila Halder ( supra ), I am of the
considered view that the captioned appeals deserve to be
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 13:09:47 IST 2026
C/FA/379/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
allowed. Hence, the claimants are entitled to get lump-sum
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in each of the captioned appeals.
14. Therefore, all the captioned appeals stand allowed partly.
The claimants/appellants shall be entitled for lump-sum
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in each appeal. The learned
Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs.54,500/- in each
claim petition. Therefore, the claimants/appellants shall be
entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.4,45,500/- i.e.
(Rs.5,00,000/- – Rs.54,500/-) in each appeal.
15. The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum, therefore, the claimants/appellants shall
also be entitled for the interest at the rate of 7.5% on the
additional amount of compensation.
16. In view of the above discussion, all the captioned appeals
stand allowed partly. The impugned judgments and awards are
modified to the aforesaid extent.
17. The respondent No.2- S. T. Corporation Limited is directed
to deposit the additional amount of compensation along with the
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition till its realization, within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
18. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal
shall disburse the amount to the original claimant/s, after
deducting the deficit court fees, if any, and after due verification.
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 13:09:47 IST 2026
C/FA/379/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
Statutory amount, if any, lying/deposited with the Registry of
this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith.
19. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Tue Jul 28 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 13:09:47 IST 2026