CHAMPAKBHAI BABUBHAI GAMIT vs K S SCHANDRASHEKHARAN SIDDHESWARAN
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2590/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2590 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHAMPAKBHAI BABUBHAI GAMIT & ORS.
Versus
K S SCHANDRASHEKHARAN SIDDHESWARAN & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 28/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 22.11.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vyara in MACP No.123/2009, whereby the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the
compensation to the tune of Rs.2,62,800/- after deducting 20% of the
awarded amount on account of self negligence of the deceased along
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on
06.06.2009, the deceased-Maheshbhai Champakbhai Gamit was riding
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 13:10:46 IST 2026
C/FA/2590/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-19-D-3573 along with two
pillion riders namely, Navinbhai Revjibhai Konkani and Jigneshbhai
Shankarbhai Konkani and was proceeding towards Vyara from
Navapura. When they reached at the place of accident, the respondent
no.1 herein came by driving a truck bearing registration no.KA-01-AD-
5007 at an excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner so as to
endangering the human life and dashed with the motorcycle of the
deceased, thereby caused the accident. Due to the impact of the said
accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the
injuries.
3. On being served, the respondent no.2/insurance company filed its
written statement and thereby denying all the averments made in the
claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by respective
parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the
compensation to the tune of Rs.2,62,800/- after deducting 20% of the
awarded amount on account of self negligence of the deceased along
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till its realization.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the original claimants/appellants herein challenged the
impugned judgment and award on the ground of negligence as well as
quantum.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 13:10:46 IST 2026
C/FA/2590/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
7. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
original claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that at the
time of accident, the deceased-Maheshbhai Champakbhai Gamit was
riding his motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-19-D-3573 along with
Navinbhai Revjibhai Konkani and Jigneshbhai Shankarbhai Konkani. He
further submitted that the claim petition came to be filed under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the issue of negligence has
become irrelevant; however, the learned Tribunal has attributed the
negligence to the extent of 20% on the part of the deceased and
thereafter deducted 20% of the awarded amount on account of self
negligence of the deceased. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has
committed gross error in considering the issue of negligence and
attributing the negligence to the extent of 20% on the part of the
deceased. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellants have placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Honble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar & Anr. Vs. United India
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2019 (12) SCC 398.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the
claim petition came to be filed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act. He further submitted that during the pendency, the Motor
Vehicles Act came to be amended and a new Section i.e. Section 164
has been inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that
as per newly added Section, the original claimants/appellants are
entitled to get the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of
their family member. He further submitted that the provisions of Section
164 can be applied retrospectively. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the original claimants/appellants placed the reliance upon
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 13:10:46 IST 2026
C/FA/2590/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.6260 of 2019 titled as The New India Assurance
Company Limited v. Urmila Halder, decided on 08.02.2024.
Therefore, he submitted that the captioned appeal is liable to be
allowed.
9. Per contra, Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent no.2/insurance company vehemently submitted
that at the time of accident, the deceased was the rider of the offending
motorcycle. She further submitted that after considering the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal has apportioned the negligence between
the rider of the motorcycle and the offending truck. Therefore, she
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in
deducting 20% of the awarded amount on account of self negligence of
the deceased. She further submitted that the provisions of Section 164
cannot be invoked in the present case as the Act was amended
subsequently, therefore, the provisions cannot be applied
retrospectively. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
10. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the
original claimants/appellants have challenged the impugned judgment
and award on the ground of negligence as well as quantum.
11. So far as the negligence is concerned, the claim petition came to
be filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988. The issue is no more
res integra and the same has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Sunil Kumar & Anr. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed in para nos.7, 8 and 9 as under:-
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 13:10:46 IST 2026
C/FA/2590/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
“7. As observed in Hansrajbhai v. Kodala (supra) one of the suggestions
made by the Transport Development Council was "to provide adequate
compensation to victims of road accidents without going into long drawn
procedure." As a sequel to the recommendations made by the Committee
and the Council, Section 140 was enacted in the present Act in place of
Section 92A to 92E of the Old Act. Compensation payable thereunder, as
under the repealed provisions, continued to be on the basis of at an no
fault liability though enhanced rate which was further enhanced by
subsequent amendments. Sections 140 and 141 of the present Act makes
it clear that the compensation payable thereunder does not foreclose the
liability to pay or right to receive compensation under any other provision of
the Act or any other law in force except compensation awarded under
Section 163A of the Act. Compensation under Section 140 of the Act was
thus understood to be in the nature of an interim payment pending the final
award under Section 166 of the Act. Section 163-A, on the other hand, was
introduced in the New Act for the first time to remedy the situation where
determination of final compensation on fault basis under Section 166 of the
Act was progressively getting protracted. The Legislative intent and
purpose was to provide for payment of final compensation to a class of
claimants (whose income was below Rs.40,000/- per annum) on the basis
of a structured formula without any reference to fault liability. In fact, in
Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra) the bench had occasion to observe that:
"Compensation amount is paid without pleading or proof of fault, on the
principle of social justice as a social security measure because of ever-
increasing motor vehicle accidents in fast-moving society. Further, the
law before insertion of Section 163-A was giving limited benefit to the
extent provided under Section 140 for no-fault liability and
determination of compensation amount on fault liability was taking a
long time. That mischief is sought to be remedied by introducing
Section 163-A and the disease of delay is sought to be cured to a large
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 13:10:46 IST 2026
C/FA/2590/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
extent by affording benefit to the victims structured-formula basis.
Further, if the question of determining compensation on fault liability is
kept alive it would result in additional litigation and complications in
case claimants fail to establish liability of the owner of the defaulting
vehicles."
8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation
under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in
the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to
be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the
driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit
by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not
specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the
negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit
such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the
provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such
situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction
of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited
time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations
where the claims of compensation on the basis liability was taking an
unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit
the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a
proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under
Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also
defeat the very legislative intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding
that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the
Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.”
12. Thus, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of Sunil Kumar & Anr. (supra), the finding returned by the learned
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 13:10:46 IST 2026
C/FA/2590/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
Tribunal on the issue of negligence is required to be reversed, as the
question of negligence is not required to be determined in the claim
petition preferred under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988.
13. So far as the quantum is concerned, the claim petition came to be
filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, 1988. Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act came to be amended and Section 164 was inserted
in the amended Motor Vehicles Act. Section 164 of the MV Act reads as
under :-
“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
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 13:10:46 IST 2026
C/FA/2590/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of
compensation payable under this section.”
14. Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Tribunal to
award compensation of five lakh rupees in case of death and two and a
half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim,
as the case may be.
15. 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.”
16. Thus, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Urmila Halder (supra), there is not even an iota of doubt
that Section 164 of the MV Act can be made applicable retrospectively.
Therefore, having considered the ratio of the judgment rendered by the
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 13:10:46 IST 2026
C/FA/2590/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Urmila Halder (supra), the
compensation of Rs.2,62,800/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is
hereby enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-.
17. The learned Tribunal has already awarded the compensation to
the tune of Rs.2,62,800/-, therefore, the appellants/claimants shall be
entitled for additional compensation of Rs.2,37,200/- i.e. (5,00,000-
2,62,800). The learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of
8% per annum, therefore, the original claimants/appellants shall be
entitled for the same rate of interest on additional amount of
compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
18. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands
allowed partly and the impugned judgment and award is to be modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondent no.2/insurance company shall
deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest within
a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
19. Upon depositing of the said amount of compensation, the learned
Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation along with
interest to the original claimants/appellants herein after deducting deficit
of Court fee, if any, after due verification. The amount, if any, lying
deposited with the registry of this Court, the same shall be transmitted
to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
20. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Aug 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 01 13:10:46 IST 2026