HEIRS OF DECD. BHIKHIBEN MANAJI CHAUHAN vs LALITKUMAR ISHWARBHAI PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3195/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3195 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HEIRS OF DECD. BHIKHIBEN MANAJI CHAUHAN & ORS.
Versus
LALITKUMAR ISHWARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR ARIF A SHEKH(5040) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 17/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 07.07.2012 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No. 2182 of 2010,
whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.1,96,500/- along with interest at the rate of 8%
per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization,
as compensation. The learned Tribunal had exonerated the original
opponent No.4/respondent no.4 herein from its liability to satisfy the
award.
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 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:08:58 IST 2026
C/FA/3195/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
i. On 21.12.2010, Ms. Bhikhiben Chauhan (hereinafter
referred to as the “ deceased ”) was travelling in a
rickshaw bearing engine No.24 MBTJ20402. When she
reached near the place of the accident, one alto car
bearing registration No.GJ-2-AC-9823, came in a rash and
negligent manner and at an excessive speed, and dashed
with the rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling,
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.
Therefore, the original claimants/appellants herein
ii.
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, all the original opponents/respondents
herein filed their respective Written Statements, 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.1,96,500/-
along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:08:58 IST 2026
C/FA/3195/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
compensation.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
v.
judgment and award, original claimants/appellants herein
has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the
ground of quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the original claimants/appellants
herein vehemently submitted that the Claim Petition came to be filed
before the learned Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle
Act, seeking compensation on account of the death of Ms. Bhikhiben
Chauhan in the vehicular accident, which took place on 21.12.2010. He
further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the MV
Act came to be amended, and Section 164 of the MV Act has been
inserted. He submitted that as per the newly inserted Section 164 of
the MV Act, the claimant/appellant herein is entitled to get
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. He further submitted that
Section 164 of the Act can be applied retrospectively. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the original claimant/appellant herein
placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urmila
Halder reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC-74844 . Placing reliance upon
the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the original
claimants/appellants herein submitted that the captioned appeal
deserves to be allowed and a lumpsum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be
awarded as compensation to the original claimant/appellant herein.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:08:58 IST 2026
C/FA/3195/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
5. On the other hand, Mr. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. He further
submitted that the Claim Petition has been filed under the provisions of
Section 163A of the MV Act, therefore, contended that the learned
Tribunal had awarded just compensation in accordance with the
provisions of Section 163A of the MV Act. He further submitted that the
newly inserted Section 164 of the Act cannot be applied retrospectively.
He further submitted that the instant appeal is devoid of merits, and
contended that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.4 - Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal had
exonerated the respondent No.4 – Insurance Company from its liability
to satisfy the award. He further submitted that there is no infirmity in
the impugned judgment and award. He contended that the findings
returned by the learned Tribunal qua respondent No.4 – Insurance
Company be upheld and hence, argued that the captioned appeal qua
respondent No.4 be dismissed.
QUANTUM
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it
is to be noted that the original claimants/appellants herein has
challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of
quantum.
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:08:58 IST 2026
C/FA/3195/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
8. It emerges from the records that on account of the death of Ms.
Bhikhinen Chauhan in the vehicular accident, which took place on
21.12.2010, Claim Petition was filed before the learned Tribunal under
Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle
Act subsequently came to be amended and new Section 164 was
inserted in the amended Motor Vehicles Act. Section 164 of the MV Act
is reproduced hereinunder for ready reference:-
“ Section 164 of the MV Act.
164. Payment of compensation in case of death or
grievous heart, 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 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:08:58 IST 2026
C/FA/3195/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
9. Thus, the newly inserted Section 164 of the Motor vehicle Act
empowers the Tribunal to award compensation of Five lakh rupees in
case of death and Two and a half lakh in case of grievous hurt to the
legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
10. The issue as to whether Section 164 of the MV Act can be applied
retrospectively, came for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Urmila Halder (supra), and in para 10 of the judgment,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“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 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.”
11. Thus, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Urmila Halder (supra), the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
not sustainable. Therefore, original claimants/appellants herein are
entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and
accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
hereby enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-.
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:08:58 IST 2026
C/FA/3195/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026
12. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment
and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent and the captioned
appeal stands partly allowed.
13. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with the same rate of interest
as awarded by the learned Tribunal, i.e., at the rate of 8% per annum,
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 claimants/appellants
herein (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
14. 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.
15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 15:08:58 IST 2026