ALPABEN BHARATBHAI ALIAS JAGDISHBHAI DODIYA vs GUNVANTBHAI G CHAUHAN (PAGI)
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/4371/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4371 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ALPABEN BHARATBHAI ALIAS JAGDISHBHAI DODIYA & ORS.
Versus
GUNVANTBHAI G CHAUHAN (PAGI) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 10/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned
th
judgment and award dated 09.04.2021 passed by the 5 Additional
District Court & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Surendranagar
in M.A.C.P. No. 179 of 2016, whereby the Claim Petition preferred by
the original claimants/appellants herein came to be dismissed on the
ground of negligence.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal,
as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
i. On 25.06.2016 at about 09:00 p.m., Mr. Bharatbhai
(hereinafter referred to as the “ deceased ”) was driving a
vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-5-AT-644 at very
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 14:06:44 IST 2026
C/FA/4371/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
moderate speed and on the correct side of the road.
When he reached near the place of the accident, one
tanker bearing registration No.GJ-16-Z-3787, came in a
rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed,
and dashed with the vehicle driven by the deceased,
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 during
treatment.
ii. Therefore, the original claimants/appellants herein
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, original opponent No.3/respondent No.3
herein – Insurance Company filed its Written Statement,
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 dismissed the
claim petition preferred by the original claimants on the
ground of negligence.
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 14:06:44 IST 2026
C/FA/4371/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
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. Nishit A Bhalodi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that the
Claim Petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal under the
provisions Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as the “ ACT ”). He submitted that the learned Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the accident had occurred owing to the sole
negligence of the deceased himself, as such held that the original
claimants/appellants herein are not entitled to get any compensation.
He further submitted that while passing the order of dismissal, the
learned Tribunal had placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Sinitha & Ors. reported in 2012 ACJ 1 . He argued that now the
law is well settled that in a Claim Petition preferred under Section 163A
of the Act, the aspect of negligence has no relevance. As such, he
argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim
Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the original claimants/appellants herein
vehemently submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the
Motor Vehicles Act came to be amended, and new Section 164 of the
Act has been inserted. He contended that as per the newly inserted
Section 164 of the MV Act, the claimants/appellants herein are entitled
to get lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- in case of
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 14:06:44 IST 2026
C/FA/4371/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
death. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 164 of the
Act can be applied retrospectively. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the original claimants/appellants 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 contended that the captioned appeal
deserves to be allowed and a lumpsum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be
awarded as compensation to the original claimants/appellants herein.
6. Per contra, Ms. Dimple Thaker, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company vehemently
submitted that the deceased himself was negligent for causing the
vehicular accident, therefore, argued that his legal representatives
cannot claim compensation in view of the judgment rendered in
Sinitha & Ors. (supra). She argued that there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgment and award and contended that the captioned
appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 –
Insurance Company further submitted that the provisions of the
amended Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this
case, as the newly inserted Section 164 of the Act cannot be applied
retrospectively, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to
be noted that the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
vehicular accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 14:06:44 IST 2026
C/FA/4371/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
deceased himself, as such, the learned Tribunal having placed reliance
upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of
Sinitha & Ors. (supra), rejected the claim petition on the ground of
negligence. Now the issue of negligence in the Claim Petition preferred
under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act is more res integra, as it
has been settled in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil
Kumar and Anr. reported in (2019) 12 SCC 398, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :-
“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 of fault 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
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 14:06:44 IST 2026
C/FA/4371/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
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.”
9. Thus, in view of the settled position of law, in a claim petition
preferred under 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, the aspect of negligence
has no relevance. Thus, the learned Tribunal is not required to consider
the aspect of negligence in the present case.
10. Further, the Claim Petition was filed before the learned Tribunal
under Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988. During the pendency of the
proceedings, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act came to be
amended and Section 164 was inserted in the amended Motor Vehicle
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.
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 14:06:44 IST 2026
C/FA/4371/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
(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.”
11. Section 164 of the MV 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.
12. 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/- 5,00,000/-
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 14:06:44 IST 2026
C/FA/4371/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
(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, 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 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, a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded as compensation to the original
claimants/appellants herein. The original claimants shall also be entitled
to 9% interest per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of
filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.
14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal
stands allowed partly and the impugned judgment and award stands
modified to the aforesaid extent.
15. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the
awarded amount along with interest, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon depositing the awarded
amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
to the original claimants (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due
verification.
16. 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.
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 14:06:44 IST 2026
C/FA/4371/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
17. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN...
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 14 14:06:44 IST 2026