RAKESHKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL vs MALAJI ZENAJI CHAUHAN
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/735/2026 (GJHC240706562025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 735 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 735 of 2026
==========================================================
RAKESHKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL
Versus
MALAJI ZENAJI CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAVAN K PATEL(11303) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KRUNAL R SAKSENA(5915) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/09/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. The driver of the offending vehicle, bearing registration
No. GJ-01-KL-8403 (Maruti Car), has filed this appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the
common judgment and award, Dated: 03.02.2020, passed
by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
Gandhinagar (in brief, ‘the Tribunal’), in MACP No. 476 &
477 of 2016.
1.1 In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No.
476 of 2016, which resulted in favour of the original
claimants and they were granted total compensation of
Rs.12.04,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition, till
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:39 IST 2026
C/FA/735/2026 (GJHC240706562025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
realization and with costs of the litigation by holding the
driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. Maruti Car, liable jointly
and severally.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as
under;
On unfortunate day of 18.02.2016, the deceased –
Mehulbhai Malaji Chauhan was riding his motor-cycle
bearing registration No. GJ-01-MG-2150 and one Chanduji
Raijiji Chauhan was sitting as pillion rider and when they
are reached on the outskirts of Gandhinagar city, on the
road going from Dehgam to Naroda, the present appellant,
i.e. the driver of Maruti Car, came driving his car in rash
and negligent manner and in excessive speed from the
opposite side and collided the same with the motor-cycle of
the deceased Mehulbhai, which resulted into instantaneous
death of the driver of motor-cycle, i.e. Mehulbhai, and the
pillion rider Chanduji.
2.1 The FIR of the alleged accident was lodged by one of
the occupants of the offending car, namely Sanjaybhai
Takhabhai Damor. Therefore,, the old aged parents,
unmarried sisters and widow of the deceased – Mehulbhai
filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the driver
and owner of the offending car.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:39 IST 2026
C/FA/735/2026 (GJHC240706562025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
2.2 Initially, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. was
joined as a party in the claim petition, but, later its name
was deleted on account of non-insurance of the offending
vehicle at the time of accident.
2.3 According to the claimants, the deceased – Mehulbhai
was working with one Shiv Ugati Developers with annual
salary of Rs.90,000/- and there was expectation of
enhancement in his salary in the future, as he was hale and
hearty and aged about 22 years only, at the time of
accident. Thus, the claimants claimed total dependency on
the income of the deceased, terming the deceased as the
sole breadwinner of the family.
2.4 In all, the claimants claimed compensation under the
pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary heads and the learned
Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.12.04,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of the filing of the claim petition, till realization.
2.5 Finding flow in the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal, the driver of the Maruti car has preferred appeal.
3. Heard, learned advocate, Mr. Krunal Saksena,
appearing for the appellant. Though served, none appear for
the opponents.
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:39 IST 2026
C/FA/735/2026 (GJHC240706562025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Saksena, argued that the
appellant was wrongly impleaded as party opponent, as the
driver of the car, whereas, the appellant was not driving the
vehicle, at the relevant point of time. The vehicle was sold to
one Karaninsh Ratansinh Rathod and in that view of the
matter, the Tribunal committed a serious error in fastening
liability upon the appellant to pay the amount of
compensation under the joint and several liability.
Therefore, it was submitted to allow the appeal and to set
aside the liability fastened by the Tribunal on the present
appellant.
5. The Tribunal was unimpressed by the submission of
the appellant and though served upon, the present
appellant on his own volition did not participate in the
proceedings before the Tribunal. The appellant did neither
raised any contention nor did he denied the claim of the
original claimants in the claim petition. Hence, the Tribunal
drew adverse inference against the appellant for not
entering into the witness box. By taking into consideration
the FIR and panchnama and by applying the principle of res
ipsa loquitur, the Tribunal held the driver of the Maruit car,
i.e. the appellant, liable.
5.1 In Paragraph-8, the Tribunal has discussed the issue
in detail, which reads thus;
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:39 IST 2026
C/FA/735/2026 (GJHC240706562025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
“8. Looking to the facts of the case, the principle of res
ipsa loquitur would easily apply. The only available evidence
is the driver of the car opponent no. 1, who has c osen to
remain absent from the proceedings nor he has been
examined by the owner of offending car. The allegations
made in the FIR by third party Mr. Sanjaybhai Takhabhai
goes unchallenged. Therefore, relying on the contents of the
FIR, it is proved and established that, the driver of offending
car was careless and negligent while coming from the
opposite direction and though he having an opportunity to
avoid the accident he failed to give clear access to the
motorcycle rider as a result the car was collided with the
motorcycle. Hence, without much discussions on the issue of
negligence, I held the opponent no. 1 driver of Maruti Car
no. GJ01-KL-8403 solely negligent in causing the accident
and accordingly Issue no. 1 is decided in the Affirmative.”
5.2 Police record, FIR and filing of the charge-sheet have
not been challenged by the present appellant. In that
regard, let me advert to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court, rendered in the case of ‘Reena Vs. Managing
Director, Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation’ , reported in 2026 (0) INSC 889, wherein, in
Paragraph-21, the Apex Court has observed as under;
“21. The following principles can be laid out from the above
judgments:
A. Charge Sheet creates a prima facie case of negligence.
B. Criminal acquittals do not displace this prima facie
civil liability.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:39 IST 2026
C/FA/735/2026 (GJHC240706562025) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
C. Scene sketches showing post-impact vehicle positions
cannot be used
to infer contributory negligence against smaller vehicles.
D. High Courts cannot summarily overturn MACT Awards
without meeting the standard of preponderance of
probability in civil cases.”
5.3 Against the aforesaid background, the appellant did
not led any evidence to counter the facts emerging from the
FIR, panchnama etc..
6. In view of the above discussion, I see no reason to
entertain this appeal and the same is dismissed . The
impugned judgment and award dated 03.02.2020, passed
by the Tribunal is confirmed.
6.1 In view of the disposal of the main matter, the
connected civil application shall not survive and the same
also stands disposed of, accordingly.
R&P, if any, be sent back, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 16:35:39 IST 2026