Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Babubhai Jasabhai Maru

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No.1. With the consent of learned advocate appearing for respective parties, present appeal is taken up for final hearing today.

[1.0] This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant – original opponent No.2 – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment and award dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), at Rajkot (for short referred to as “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1750 of 2023 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short referred to as “MV Act”) whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of sole respondent herein – original claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.24,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

[2.0] The brief facts of the present claim petition are that the accident took place on 28.10.2023, when the claimant was riding his motorcycle No.GJ-03-AG-1410 with slow speed and at that time, ST Bus No.GJ-18Z-6821 being driven by its driver came with full speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant – motorcyclist and due to impact, the right leg of the claimant was required to be amputated and another leg of the claimant sustained several fractures. The original claimant preferred the captioned MACP claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- and the learned Tribunal awarded the aforesaid amount of compensation.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Devang Bhatt for learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the appellant – GSRTC has strenuously argued that the driver of offending ST Bus was not made party respondent before the learned Tribunal though he was a necessary and interested party. Further, even the insurance company of the motorcycle involved in the accident was not made a party. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the contents of FIR as well as panchnama and has erroneously held the driver of ST Bus to be sole negligent though the claimant – motorcyclist had also contributed in the accident as the claimant – motorcyclist coming from opposited while overtaking a tractor dashed with the ST Bus and the learned Tribunal without considering the panchnama of scene of offence has held the ST Bus driver solely negligent for the accident though there was a head on collission between the two vehicles and therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have considered contributory negligence on the part of the claimant-motorcyclist.

[3.1] So far as quantum part is concerned, learned advocate for the ST Corporation has submitted that though the claimant had not produced any evidence to prove his age, the learned Tribunal has relied on Aadhar Card of the claimant. Further, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering monthly income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- per month in absence of any evidence qua qualification and econimic activity of the claimant. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing 60% permanent disability due to amputation of foot on the basis of medical certificate as qualified doctor was not examined before the learned Tribunal. He has therefore submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation without there being any evidence with regard to income of the claimant. Therefore, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah appearing for respondent – original claimant has opposed the present appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the ST Bus driver to be solely negligent for the accident. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has appropriately awarded the compensation. Therefore, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

[5.0] Having heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and considering the record of the case, it appears that so far as negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal has held driver of ST Bus to be solely negligent for the accident relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635.

[5.1] The learned Tribunal has considered the evidence of claimant (Exh.18), FIR (Exh.19) and panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.20). The driver of the offending ST Bus is examined at Exh.34 and disability certificate is at Exh.31. As per the case of the claimant, while the claimant was driving his motorcycle with moderate speed on the correct side of the road, at that time, the driver of ST Bus came from opposite direction and dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant and the claimant in his evidence (Exh.18) has stated about the negligence of the ST Bus driver and after appreciating the evidence the driver of ST Bus is held sole negligent.

[5.2] It is the case of the appellant – ST Corporation that in the accident, the driver of ST Bus was not having any negligence and the road where the accident took place is a highway road and there was no any divider. The charge-sheet is filed against the driver of ST Bus. The specific defence taken by the ST Corporation is that the claimant was driving the motorcycle and while overtaking a tractor, the claimant was talking on mobile phone and hence, due to sole negligence on the part of the claimant-motorcyclist, the alleged accident took place. But if we peruse the evidence of the driver of ST Bus examined at Exh.34, it appears that in the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the complaint as well as charge-sheet is filed against him and he has nowhere stated about the alleged negligence of the claimant-motorcyclist that the claimant while overtaking a tractor was talking on mobile phone due to which the alleged accident took place. Even otherwise, considering the size of the vehicle i.e. the ST Bus and when the ST Bus was coming from opposite direction, in absence of any material, merely based on presumption, contributory negligence of the claimant-motorcyclist is not required to be considered in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrikrishna Kanta Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 394, in absence of any evidence, contributory negligence is not proved and no sufficient material is on record based on which contributory negligence can be inferred against the claimant – motorcyclist. Further, considering the evidence of driver of ST Bus it is clear that no complaint is filed against the claimant-motorcyclist but is filed against the driver of ST Bus and even charge-sheet is also filed against the ST bus driver. Hence, in absence of any direct or corroborative piece of evidence, no inference can be drawn with regard to contributory negligence on the part of claimant – motorcyclist.

[5.3] The specific case of the claimant in his evidence is that the ST Bus was coming from opposite side in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant. The claimant has denied the factum of his talking on mobile phone while driving the motorcycle. Considering the aforesaid fact, more particularly, cross-examination of the ST Bus driver, this Court is of considered view that before the learned Tribunal, the appellant – ST Corporation failed to prove the alleged defence which is nothing but an afterthought. Neither before the police nor before the learned Tribunal, no any material is produced which can suggest that the alleged defence putforth by the driver of offending vehicle is taken at the first instance. Considering the aforesaid fact, the argument canvassed by the learned advocate that the claimant was contributorily negligent for the accident is not accepted.

[6.0] So far as quantum part is concerned, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant as 44 years at the time of accident and multiplier of 17 is applied and as per the case of the claimant he was doing skilled work of senting at the time of accident and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered his income at Rs.12,000/- per month which is just and proper. The alleged accident took place in October, 2023 and 25% future prospect is considered which is just and proper. Further, the learned Tribunal has considered 60% permanent disability body as a whole of the claimant, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajaykumar & Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 343 and accordingly awarded compensation under the head of future loss of income which is just and proper. Even under the head of pain, shock and suffering, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation very conservatively keeping in mind the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation which can be termed as “just compensation” as insured / injured claimant has to face the consequences throughout his life and that should not be any token damages. Hence, the learned Tribunal after properly appreciating the evidence has awarded the compensation as under:

1

Future Loss of Income

Rs.17,64,000/-

2

Medical Expenses

Rs.15,000/-

3

Future Medical Expenses

Rs.1,00,000/-

4

Special Diet

Rs.20,000/-

5

Transportation for remaining whole life

Rs.50,000/-

6

Loss of Earning of attendant

Rs.72,000/

7

Pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life

Rs.4,00,000/-

8

Actual loss of income

Rs.72,000/-

Total Rs…

Rs.24,93,000/-

Hence, so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, no interference is called for.

[7.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal do not call for any interference by this Court and the appeal fails and hence, present First Appeal stands dismissed.

[8.0] The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure.

[8.1] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.

[8.2] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

[9.0] Pending civil application, if any, also stands dismissed. Ad-interim relief stands vacated forthwith.