BHANUCHANDRA MANILAL SHAHversusGAGANSINH TARASINH GURKHA

     C/FA/3099/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3099 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                 Yes          No

==========================================================
                        BHANUCHANDRA MANILAL SHAH
                                   Versus
                      GAGANSINH TARASINH GURKHA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 16/02/2026
                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1.     This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and award dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar
in MACP No.648 of 2012.



2.     Heard learned advocate for the appellant. Though served,
none appears for respondent No.2.



3.     The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
learned Tribunal has passed the judgment contrary to the settled
principles of law and has erred in drawing unwarranted



                                    Page 1 of 4
     C/FA/3099/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




inferences from the evidence on record; therefore, the present
appeal deserves to be allowed.



4.     Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and
upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal
has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the
complainant failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of
the S.T. Bus.



5.     Upon going through the reasons assigned by the learned
Tribunal, the written statement filed by the respondent at
Exhibit 13, and the observations made in paragraph 17 of the
impugned judgment, and in light of the facts stated in the claim
petition, wherein the claimant specifically stated that on the date
of the accident, i.e., 30.09.2010 at about 7:00 p.m., while he was
standing on the Ambaji Platform at Geet Mandir S.T. Bus Stand,
Idar–Himmatnagar, and was waiting for an S.T. Bus to go to
Idar, opponent No.1 came driving his S.T. Bus bearing
Registration No. GJ-18-Y-3992 at an excessive speed and in a
rash and negligent manner. While taking a semi-circular turn,
the rear portion of the said bus hit the appellant, as a result of
which he fell on the road, and the rear tyre of the bus ran over
his left leg, causing serious injuries. In this regard, the claim
petition      was     filed   seeking   compensation    for    the    injuries
sustained in the said accident.



6.     It appears that the learned Tribunal has come to the
conclusion that opponent No.1, the driver of the S.T. Bus, was

                                    Page 2 of 4
     C/FA/3099/2022                         JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




examined at Exhibit 35 and stated that while the bus was being
reversed, the conductor opened the door of the S.T. Bus, and at
that time about 200–250 passengers attempted to board the bus.
During that period, the appellant allegedly lost his grip on the
handle and sustained injuries.



7.     Even if the said version is accepted as it is, the same may
at the most amount to a case of contributory negligence.
However, once the use and involvement of the vehicle are not in
dispute, the learned Tribunal ought to have properly considered
the aspect of involvement and negligence in light of the evidence
placed on record before it.



8.     In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view
that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing
the entire claim petition. Hence, the judgment and award passed
by the learned Tribunal are required to be quashed and set aside
and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal
for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to both the
parties to lead evidence. The opponents shall be at liberty to
raise all permissible statutory defences, and the learned Tribunal
shall decide the matter independently on its own merits, keeping
in mind the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.


9.     On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the
appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned
Tribunal, which shall decide the claim petition afresh after giving
an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and decide the


                              Page 3 of 4
       C/FA/3099/2022                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026




same on its own merits, without being influenced by the
observations made by this Court, preferably within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to
costs. The Registry is directed to return the Record and
Proceedings, if any, to the learned Tribunal forthwith.



                                                                    (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI




      Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
      Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/02/2026 16:42:11




                                               Page 4 of 4