DUDHABHAI TRIKAMBHAI PARMAR vs SARVANSINGH S/O HIRASINGH (DELETED)
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1041 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DUDHABHAI TRIKAMBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
SARVANSINGH S/O HIRASINGH (DELETED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS CHANDANI O VYAS FOR VIRAL K VASHI(8220) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,2,3
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS ESHA S BHAVSAR FOR MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the
Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 28/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the present
appellants - original claimant nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the
judgment and award dated 01.09.2023 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) and 2nd Additional District and
Session Judge at Mirzapur, Dist.: Ahmedabad (Rural) in MACP no.
421 of 2015 whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the Claim
Petition.
2. The factual matrix of the present appeal is that a Claim
Petition was preferred by the appellants before the learned
Tribunal to recover compensation of Rs.10,00,000. It is the case
of the appellants that on 20-02-2015, the original applicant no. 1,
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
Dudhabhai Trikambhai Parmar’s son and applicant nos. 2 and 3’s
brother - Chaganbhai Dudhabhai Parmar, went towards Bavla on
motorcycle no. GJ-01-ST-8963, which was driven by the deceased
- Chaganbhai Dudhabhai Parmar at a moderate speed and at
around 8:20 pm while passing by village: Lodariya, near petrol
pump, the original opponent no. 1 came with truck no. GJ-04-X-
5996 in full speed and in a negligent manner and dashed with his
motorcycle whereby the deceased - Chaganbhai Parmar
sustained grievous injuries. During the course of his treatment at
Sanand, he passed away. Hence, the original claimant no. 1
being father of the deceased and original claimant nos. 2 and 3
being brothers of the deceased had filed Claim Petition before
the learned Tribunal to recover compensation. It is pertinent to
note that during the pendency of the Claim Petition, the father of
the deceased, claimant no. 1 - Dudhabhai Trikambhai Parmar
passed away and he was deleted as a party to the Claim Petition.
2.1. The learned Tribunal has rejected the Claim Petition only on
the ground that the claimant nos. 2 and 3 are the elder brothers
of the deceased and they are not financially dependent on the
deceased and as they were living separately from the deceased
on the date of the accident. Hence, they cannot maintain the
Claim Petition as they are not dependent on the deceased and
mainly on this ground, the Claim Petition was rejected.
3. Heard Ms. Chandani O. Vyas, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of Mr. Viral K Vashi, learned advocate for the
appellants. She has submitted that the impugned judgment and
award is illegal, improper and unjust under the provisions of law.
She submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Birender in Civil
Appeal nos. 242-243 of 2020 has already held that the Claim
Petition can be maintained by the legal representative of the
deceased and they have right to apply for the compensation. She
further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
case of Ahmedbhai Sharafatali Sai and Another Vs.
Keshubhai Mohanbhai Parmar and Ors. in First Appeal no.
3579 of 2014 has also observed that the brothers can claim the
compensation on account of death of the brother and Claim
Petition is maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
not considered any other aspect and merely on this ground only
the Claim Petition has been rejected. She has submitted that the
present appeal deserves to be allowed and matter is required to
be remanded back to the concerned Tribunal to decide afresh.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Esha S Bhavsar, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the
respondents has submitted that the judgment and award passed
by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and does not require
any interference. In support of her arguments, she has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of United India
Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Diptiben Ureshbhai Vora
reported in 2017 ACJ 234 and submitted that it has clearly
come on record that even in the ration card, the names of
claimant nos. 2 and 3 have been deleted as they had moved to
some other place and hence, they are not financially dependent
on the deceased, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly
rejected the Claim Petition.
5. Heard the learned advocate for the respective parties.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
only question before this Court is that the learned Tribunal has
rejected the Claim Petition only on the ground that claimant nos.
2 and 3 are not financially dependent on the deceased and the
Claim Petition came to be rejected mainly on this ground only. In
this regard, the findings of the learned Tribunal is required to be
considered. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the deposition
of witness of opponent no.3-insurance company namely,
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
Pravinchandra Bhrambhatt who has been examined vide exh. 31.
As per his deposition, he has was running a fair price shop and
the deceased and his family members were registered in his fair
price shop. The copy of the ration card has been produced at
exh. 32 and as per this ration card, three names have been
mentioned namely, Dudhabhai Trikambhai Parmar, Samuben
Dudhabhai and Chaganbhai Dudhabai. Initially, there were six
names in the ration card and out of them, three names have
been deleted. The learned Tribunal, on the ground that, the
claimant nos. 2 and 3 are residing separately and also
considering that the brother of a person who dies in the motor
accident is not entitled to maintain the petition as they have
proved that they were residing together and the deceased was
earning and he used to feed the claimant nos. 2 and 3, the claim
petition was rejected mainly on this ground.
7. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Birender (supra) whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed in paragraph no. 15 as under:
“15. It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a right to apply
for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily
follow that even the major married and earning sons of
the deceased being legal representatives have a right
to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden
duty of the Tribunal to consider the application
irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal
representative was fully dependant on the deceased
and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads
only. The evidence on record in the present case would
suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural
labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre
income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per
annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on
the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying
with her, who met with an accident at the young age of
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
48 years.”
8. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Keshubhai Mohanbhai Parmar and Ors (supra) has observed
in paragraph nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 as under:
“15. As per Section 166 (1) of the MV Act, the
following persons can claim the compensation on
account of death or injury sustained in a vehicular
accident:-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all
or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured
or all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased, as the case may be:
16. Clause (1)(c) of Section 166 is amply clear that
the legal representatives of the deceased can claim the
compensation on account of death. It is not in dispute
that the deceased happens to be the brother of the
claimants. Being legal representatives, they can
maintain the claim petition. Learned counsel for the
appellants placed the reliance upon the judgment
rendered in the case of Sadhana Tomar (supra),
wherein the family members including father and
younger sister were held not entitled to get the
compensation as they were not dependents. Similarly
in case of Anju Mukhi & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Court in para 4 of the judgment, has observed as
under:-
“4. The only challenge is to the finding that on
remarriage the widow loses the right to claim
compensation. It is to be seen that the main
purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act is to award
compensation for loss of income on the death of
a person. On remarriage there is no longer a loss
of income. Now the dependency has shifted on to
the new husband. Therefore, we are in
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
agreement with the High Court that after
remarriage a widow would not be entitled to any
compensation.”
17. Similarly, in case of Anand Pal (supra), the
brothers and sisters were held not to be dependents
because they would either be earning members
themselves, married or dependent upon their father.
18. The issue involved in the present appeal directly
came for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court
in case of Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr. (supra),
wherein the elder brother had filed the claim petition to
claim the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act
on account of death of his younger brother. The
Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 13 of the judgment, has
observed as under:-
“13. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat
High Court is in consonance with the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience having
regard to the conditions of the Indian society.
Every legal representative who suffers on
account of the death of a person due to a motor
vehicle accident should have a remedy for
realisation of compensation and that is provided
by sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These
provisions are in consonance with the principles
of law of torts that every injury must have a
remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents
Tribunal to determine the compensation which
appears to it to be just as provided in section
110-B of the Act and to specify the person or per-
sons to whom compensation shall be paid. The
determination of the compensation payable and
its apportionment as re-quired by section 110B of
the Act amongst the legal repre- sentatives for
whose benefit an application may be filed under
section 110-A of the Act have to be done in
accordance with well-known prin- ciples of law.
We should remember that in an Indian family
brothers. sisters and brothers' children and some
times foster children live together and they are
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
dependent upon the bread-winner of the family
and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a
motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to
deny them compensation relying upon the
provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which
as we have already held has been substantially
modified by the provi- sions contained in the Act
in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles
accidents. We express our approval of the
decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira and another v.
Chaturbhai Taljabhai and others, (supra) and hold
that the brother of a person who dies in a motor
vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition
under section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal
representative of the deceased.”
19. Similarly, in case of Jitender Kumar (supra), the
married sons and an unmarried daughter filed the
claim petition for claiming the compensation. The
Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 12 of the judgment, has
observed as under:-
“12. The High Court has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Birender, 2020) 11 SCC 356 to observe
that the claimant-appellant(s) are legal
representatives of the deceased and have a right
to apply for compensation. Thereafter, in its
discussion, the Court observed that the claimant-
appellant(s) have not been shown to be
dependents on the deceased and consequently, a
deduction of 50% is to be made to determine the
compensation to be received by the claimant-
appellant(s).”
20. Similarly, in case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors., reported in (2020) 11 SCC
356, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 14 of the
judgment, has observed as under:-
“14. It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a right to
apply for compensation. Having said that, it must
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
necessarily follow that even the major married
and earning sons of the deceased being legal
representatives have a right to apply for
compensation and it would be the bounden duty
of the Tribunal to consider the application
irrespective of the fact whether the concerned
legal representative was fully dependant on the
deceased and not to limit the claim towards
conventional heads only. The evidence on record
in the present case would suggest that the
claimants were working as agricultural labourers
on contract basis and were earning meagre
income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/
per annum. In that sense, they were largely
dependant on the earning of their mother and in
fact, were staying with her, who met with an
accident at the young age of 48 years.”
22. Further, in case of Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2007 (10)
SCC 643, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a
married daughter can also claim the compensation on
account of death of her parents. Similarly, in case of N.
Jayasree Vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance
Company Ltd., reported in AIR OnLINE 2021 SC 923,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the brother’s
sister and brother’s children can also claim the
compensation.
23. Even in case of Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel &
Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported
in 2014 (3) SCC 394, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
that the successor to the trustees of trust property can
also be considered as a legal representative. The MP
High Court, in case of Mahant Shyamdas Guru
Mohandas Vs. Lalaram M. Kori & Ors., reported in AIR
2008 MP 47, also held that even a Gurubhai of an
Ashram can be considered as a legal representative.
24. Thus, in view of the catena of judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts, I am
of the considered view that the brothers can claim the
compensation on account of death of their brother and
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
the claim petition is maintainable under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act.”
9. Considering the settled principles of law and the
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court as per Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, in case of a death resulting from an accident, the
Claim Petition can be filed by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased. Further, it is pertinent to note
that initially, the petition was filed by the father as well as the
brothers of the deceased but during the pendency of the Claim
Petition, the father of the deceased passed away. So considering
the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, as per Section 166(1)(c) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claim petition can be maintained
by the brothers of the deceased and the claim petition is
maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
10. Considering the above, the findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal are against the settled principles of law and
require interference and hence, the impugned judgment and
award deserves to be quashed and set aside.
11. The present appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and
award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) and
2nd Additional District and Session Judge at Mirzapur, Dist.:
Ahmedabad (Rural) in MACP no. 421 of 2015 dated 01.09.2023
rejecting the Claim Petition of the claimants is hereby quashed
and set aside.
11.1 The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to
decide the Claim Petition being MACP no. 421 of 2015 afresh in
accordance with law and also considering the fact that the Claim
Petition is of 2015, it may be decided preferably within a period
of one year from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026
C/FA/1041/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240114112024)
Direct service is permitted.
12. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
ANUSRI
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:07:22 IST 2026