ZALA RAMILABEN WD/O MANILALversusMOHAMADJAMIL MOHAMADHANIF SHAIKH

    C/FA/3334/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3334 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes        No
                                                        √
==========================================================
              ZALA RAMILABEN WD/O MANILAL & ANR.
                               Versus
         MOHAMADJAMIL MOHAMADHANIF SHAIKH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 03/02/2026
                            ORAL JUDGMENT


      Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia waives service of
notice of Admission for and on behalf of the respondent No.3. With
the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties,
present appeal is taken up for <nal hearing today.

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is <led by the appellants – original
claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
30.03.2024 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
Mahisagar at Lunawada (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.88 of 2021, whereby the learned Tribunal
was pleased to partly allow the claim petition by holding the
respondents herein – original opponent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- to the original


                                 Page 1 of 7
    C/FA/3334/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




claimants.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to <ling of present appeal are as follows:

[2.1] On 08.03.2021, the deceased Manilal (hereinafter referred to as
“deceased”) and opponent No.1 were going on a motorcycle bearing
registration No.GJ-07-BG-8638 and when they reached at the place of
accident, suddenly a Neel Cow came on the road because of which the
motorcyclist applied brake and both the riders of motorcycle fell from
the motorcycle and deceased sustaining fatal injuries died. Therefore,
legal heirs and representatives of the deceased <led MACP No.88 of
2021 seeking compensation of Rs.25 lakh.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the driver of motorcycle – original opponent
No.1 to be solely negligent for the accident and was pleased to award
Rs.10,50,000/- to the original claimants however, exonerated the
insurance company and held only original opponent Nos.1 and 2 liable
to pay the awarded compensation. However, the original claimants
<led First Appeal No.188/2023 challenging exoneration of insurance
company and the coordinate Bench of this Court partly allowed the
First Appeal No.188/2023 vide judgment dated 06.09.2023 by setting
aside the <nding of learned Tribunal exonerating the insurance
company from the liability to pay the compensation and MACP
No.88/2021 was remanded back to the learned Tribunal for deciding
afresh the issue of liability of insurance company.

[2.3] The learned Tribunal after aKording opportunity of hearing to
all the parties concerned, considered the MACP No.88/2021 afresh as
per the directions issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court in para
7 of the judgment dated 06.09.2023 and held the original opponent


                                Page 2 of 7
    C/FA/3334/2025                                JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the
original claimants. However, once again the original claimants have
come up with present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal.

[3.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have chosen not to
appear before this Court.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the
appellants – original claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal
has committed an error in not properly appreciating the evidence and
awarding inadequate compensation. He has further submitted that
learned Tribunal has not considered minimum wages prevailing at the
relevant point of time and even compensation under the head of loss
of consortium is also not properly awarded. Hence, he has requested
to allow the present appeal.

[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia appearing for the respondent
– insurance company at the outset opposed the present appeal on the
ground that present appeal is barred by the principle of res judicata as
earlier appeal being First Appeal No.88/2023 was <led by the present
appellants wherein the coordinate Bench has been pleased to pass an
order remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide afresh
the issue of exoneration of the insurance company as the learned
Tribunal had exonerated the insurance company on the ground that
the driver of oKending motorcycle was not holding valid and eKective
license. The learned Tribunal thereafter considered the issue of
exoneration of insurance company in remitted matter and held all the
original    opponents   jointly   and     severally   liable   to    pay       the
compensation to the original claimants. However, now once again the
appellants have <led the present appeal challenging the quantum of

                                  Page 3 of 7
    C/FA/3334/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




compensation. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellants – original
claimants and learned advocate for the insurance company and
perusing the record, it appears the learned Tribunal after appreciating
the evidence vide its earlier judgment and award dated 07.10.2022
partly allowed the MACP No.88/2021 and directed original opponent
Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay compenstion of Rs.10,50,000/-
to the appellants – original claimants with interest at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of <ling of claim petition till its realization
however, the learned Tribunal at earlier point of time was pleased to
exonerate the insurance company holding that the driver of oKending
motorcycle was not havind valid and eKective driving license on the
date of accident. Being aggrieved and dissatis<ed with exoneration of
insurance company and on the ground of inadequate compensation,
the appellants herein – original claimants had <led First Appeal
No.188/2023 and the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment
dated 06.09.2023 was pleased to partly allow the appeal by observing
thus in paragraph No.7.

      “7.     For the forgoing reasons, the First Appeal No. 188 of 2023
      as well as the Civil Application (For Additional Evidence) No. 1 of
      2022 succeed and are accordingly, allowed in part. The impugned
      judgment and award is hereby modi)ed to the aforesaid extent,
      and the )nding exonerating the insurance company from the
      liability to pay the compensation, is hereby set aside. The
      appellants – claimants are permitted to produce the copy of
      Driving Licence of the respondent No. 1 herein – original opponent
      No. 1 before the learned Tribunal concerned so as to examine the
      liability of the insurance company for the payment of quantum of
      compensation as has already been decided. Accordingly, the Motor
      Accident Claim Petition No. 88 of 2021 is remanded back to the
      Tribunal concerned at Mahisagar at Lunawada for deciding afresh
      the issue of liability of paying the compensation already decided as
      aforsaid. The Tribunal is directed to provide due opportunity of


                                Page 4 of 7
    C/FA/3334/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




      hearing and leading evidence qua the Driving Licence of the
      opponent No. 1 to both the sides and shall decide the issue of
      liability to pay the compensation, in accordance with law, as
      expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months.”

      Thus, it clearly reveals that the matter was remand back only for
the limited purpose of deciding the liability part qua the insurance
company. After giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the
learned Tribunal once again rendered the impugned judgment and
award on 30.03.2024. Being aggrieved and dissatis<ed, now once
again the appellants – original claimants have <led the present appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.

[6.1] Perusing the judgment and award impugned in the present
appeal, it appears that the learned Tribunal has not disturbed its
earlier <nding or has not assigned any reason qua quantum and only
decided the issue of liability on the ground of non-holding of valid and
eKective driving license by original opponent No.1 and liability of the
insurance company and the learned Tribunal by assigning reasons in
paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment and award has come to
conclusion that original opponent No.1 possessed valid and eKective
driving license at the time of accident and therefore, come to
conclusion that the insurance company is obligatory to compensate
the claimants in accordance with law and saddled the insurance
company with liability to pay the compensation to the appellants –
original claimants.

[6.2] In view of above, once the compensation was already
determined which was accepted by co-ordinate Bench same order is
not interfered only on the ground of liability the appeal being First
Appeal No.188/2023, as the coordinate Bench in its judgment dated
06.09.2023 while remanding the matter to the learend Tribunal has


                                Page 5 of 7
    C/FA/3334/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




observed more particularly in para 7, “the appellants – claimants are
permitted to produce the copy of Driving Licence of the respondent
No. 1 herein – original opponent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal
concerned so as to examine the liability of the insurance company
for the payment of quantum of compensation as has already been
decided”, now the question to decide the issue of quantum of
compensation in second round of litigation against the judgment and
award dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in remitted
matter does not arise as present appeal is clearly barred by principle
of res judicata qua quantum only. In this regard, reference is required
to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Syed Mohamamd Saadat Ali Khan vs. Mirza Wiquor Ali Beg
reported in AIR (30) 1943 PC 115 and Vijayabai & Ors. v. Shriram
Tukaram & Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 431 (Para 14).

[7.0] Further, it is needless to say that the appeal is required to be
<led by a party on being aggrieved and dissatis<ed with the original
award or decree and right to appeal is a statutory right and party
cannot be deprived of such statutory right to <le appeal however, at
the same time, if we peruse the impugned judgment and award dated
07.10.2022 wherein earlier the insurance company was exonerated on
the ground of non-holding of valid and eKective license by the driver
of oKending vehicle but now when the insurance company is saddled
with the liability vide judgment and award dated 30.03.2024
(impugned herein), same is in favor of the appellants and even the
learned Tribunal has not decided or disturbed the quantum of
compensation and therefore, now question does not arise to re-open
the issue of quantum of compensation decided by the learned
Tribunal already in its judgment and award dated 07.10.2022. Even
otherwise, earlier the compensation was calculated by the learned


                               Page 6 of 7
       C/FA/3334/2025                                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026




Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.10.2022, which was not assailed by
the appellants on the ground of inadequacy and said judgment qua
compensation part has attained the <nality. If the appellants were
aggrieved by the inadequate compensation then the appellants ought
to have <led appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum.
Hence, no case is made out to open again such issue.

[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal being
devoid of any merit stands dismissed as it is barred by res judicata.

[9.0] The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount
alongwith the accrued interest thereon, if any, in favor of the original
claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper
veri<cation and after following due procedure, strictly as per the
apportionment made by the learned Tribunal.

[9.1]               While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid.

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


                                                                                           Sd/-
                                                                         (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/02/2026 18:36:44




                                                    Page 7 of 7