High Court of Gujarat
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusBALOCH UMARKHAN CHANUKHAN
- Disposal
- 39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Tribunal correctly held the bus driver solely negligent, but its quantum of compensation was insufficient and is hereby increased as directed.
Summary
The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) appealed a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award concerning a 2015 road accident in which a bus driver collided with a motorcyclist, Mahammadkhan Umarkhan Baloch, who later died. GSRTC argued that the Tribunal erred by not attributing contributory negligence to the deceased, by mis‑assessing his income, and by undervaluing certain heads of compensation. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the bus driver was solely negligent and affirmed the income assessment based on minimum wages. However, the Court found the quantum of compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium to be insufficient and accordingly increased those amounts. The appeal was dismissed, but the award was modified to reflect the higher compensation, and GSRTC was directed to pay the additional sum with interest.
Issues considered
- The presence and proof of contributory negligence by the deceased motorcyclist.
- The correct method for assessing the deceased's income for compensation purposes.
- The appropriate quantum of compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium.
- The applicability of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in reviewing the Tribunal's award.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedures. Order XLI Rule 33
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 168, s. 173
Subjects
motor accident claimcontributory negligencecompensation quantumloss of dependencyloss of estatefuneral expensesloss of consortiumMotor Vehicles ActSection 173Section 168appellate review
Judgment
C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1030 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
BALOCH UMARKHAN CHANUKHAN & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi), Mahesana at Visnagar (which shall hereinafter
be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in MAC Petition
No.62 of 2015, the appellant – original opponent no.2 - Gujarat
State Road Transport Corporation (which shall hereinafter be
referred to as “Corporation / GSRTC” for short) has filed the
present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).
Page 1 of 8
C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026
2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw learned Advocate for
the appellant – Corporation, whereas, despite service of notice
to the respondents they remained absent.
3) It is the case of the appellant that on 30.08.2015 at about 10:00
am when the deceased – Mahammadkhan Umarkhan Baloch
(who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased”) was riding
his motorcycle in the moderate speed and in correct side of the
road, at that time, the driver of ST Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-
Y-7509 came from Kheralu side in a negligent manner and
dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased and thereby
accident was occurred. As a result of which the deceased
sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Therefore, the original
claimants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein,
the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on
record was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw, for the appellant –
Corporation has submitted that the learned Tribunal has
committed error in considering the negligence as the deceased
himself was negligent the Tribunal ought to have considered
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as while
riding the motorcycle he was talking on the mobile phone and
alleged incident took place. Even relying on the order of the
Page 2 of 8
C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026
acquittal in criminal case and deceased had not wore headgear /
helmet. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has
not taken into consideration the certified copy of the statement
before the police which are produced in the criminal case and
ought to have considered contributory negligence of the
deceased. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal
also erred in assessing the income of the deceased only
Rs.7238.40 paisa per month though there was nothing on record
about his educational qualification, employment / business.
Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Having heard the learned Advocate for the appellant –
Corporation and going through the record it appears that the
learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and
relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C,
reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs.
Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated
the evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered the affidavit at
Exhibit 17 wherein all the facts of the accident have been
narrated in the chief-examination and supported the claim
petition. The learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence
produced on record i.e. FIR at Exhibit 24, panchnama at Exhibit
25, inquest panchnama at Exhibit 33 which also reveals that the
Page 3 of 8
C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026
deceased sustained injuries and died in the accident. Perusing
the record it appears that no rebuttal evidence is produced on
record or no material which suggest that at the time of accident
the deceased was talking on mobile phone and while making
overtake the ST Bus the accident was occurred. If we accept the
arguments as it is then also mere bare words are not enough to
prove contributory negligence and who assert the fact must
prove the same. The contributory negligence cannot be
presumed and the same must be proved by the evidence with
preponderance of probabilities as standard. In this regard
reference is required to be drawn from the case of Shrikrishna
Kanta Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
and Ors., Neutral Citation – 2025 INSC 394, hence,
arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant
is not acceptable in absence of any material or evidence on
record. In view of above, in absence of any material or evidence
learned Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion and held
driver of the offending vehicle ST bus sole negligent.
6) Now coming to the quantum part, in case of non production of
any evidence or material of income of the deceased it is the duty
of the GSRTC to brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal the
rates of minimum wages of the date of accident even otherwise
it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just compensation as per
Page 4 of 8
C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026
Section 168 of the MV Act. If we consider the aforesaid fact the
learned Tribunal has not committed any error keeping in mind
the prevalent rate of minimum wages and at that time for
unskilled labour the rate was Rs.278.40 paisa per day and for 26
days net pay would be Rs.7,238/- hence the income assessed by
the learned Tribunal as Rs.7,238.40 paisa per month is just and
proper and up to that extent the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error.
7) Further, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the
deceased as 23 years at the time of accident on the basis of
which the learned Tribunal has further considered future
prospective income as 40% and as the deceased was having 4
dependents 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased and multiplier of 18 were considered by the
learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which are just and
proper.
8) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, has awarded total Rs.70,000/-
under the three conventional heads, however, this Court is of
the view that amount is required to be reassessed as
Page 5 of 8
C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral
expenses. Therefore, the respondent nos.1 to 4 – original
claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e.
Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral
expenses).
9) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu
Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o
Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
666, the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding only
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of
above judgments the respondent nos.1 to 4 herein – original
claimants being legal heirs of the deceased they are entitled for
Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of consortium.
Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed
as Rs.1,93,600/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 4). Therefore, the
respondent nos.1 to 4 – original claimants are entitled for
additional amount of Rs.1,53,600/- under the head of loss of
consortium.
10) As discussed above, the original claimants are entitled to get
compensation computed as under:
Page 6 of 8
C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this Court
Tribunal
Loss of dependency Rs.16,41,669/- Rs.16,41,669/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/-
including additional
amount of Rs.3,150/-
Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,93,600/-
including additional
amount of Rs.1,53,600/-
(Rs.48,400/- X 4)
Total compensation Rs.17,11,669/- Rs.18,71,569/-
including total additional
amount of Rs.1,59,900/-
11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.17,11,669/-, however, as discussed above
the respondent nos.1 to 4 herein – original claimants are entitled
to get additional amount of Rs.1,59,900/- (Rs.18,71,569/- -
Rs.17,11,669/-) with proportionate costs and interest as
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
12) It is pertinent to note here that in the case on hand the original
claimants remained absent but perusing the record prima facie it
appears that the learned Tribunal failed to award just and proper
compensation and hence keeping in mind the Order XLI Rule 33
of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 168 of the MV Act and
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ravindrakumar Sharma vs. State of Assam reported in
Page 7 of 8
C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026
(1999) 7 SCC 435 and in the case of Saurav Jain and
Another vs. A.B.P. Design and Another reported in
(2022)18 SCC 633, no bar to consider the aforesaid fact and
modification in absence of the claimant in appeal.
13) Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant – GSRTC stands
dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment and award
dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (AUXI.IV), Mahesana at Visnagar, in MAC Petition No.62
of 2015 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the
judgment and award remains unaltered. The appellant herein –
GSRTC shall deposit the said additional amount of
Rs.1,59,900/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal,
before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted
back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit
court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the
amount accordingly.
15) Award to be drawn accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/01/2026 17:40:08
Page 8 of 8
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "motor accident claim"Sign in to search