GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusBABUBHAI JASABHAI MARU

    C/FA/4270/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4270 of 2025
                                  With
              CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
                   In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4270 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting             Yes      No
                                                     √
==========================================================
         GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                               Versus
                   BABUBHAI JASABHAI MARU
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                          Date : 06/01/2026
                          ORAL JUDGMENT

      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 <nal 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 <led
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short referred


                               Page 1 of 7
    C/FA/4270/2025                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




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 oKending 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 oKence has held the ST Bus driver solely
negligent for the accident though there was a head on collission

                                   Page 2 of 7
    C/FA/4270/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




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 quali<cation
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 certi<cate
as quali<ed 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



                                Page 3 of 7
    C/FA/4270/2025                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




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 oKending ST Bus is examined at Exh.34 and disability
certi<cate 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 <led against the driver of ST Bus.
The speci<c 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
<led 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


                                 Page 4 of 7
    C/FA/4270/2025                              JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




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 suOcient 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 <led against the claimant-motorcyclist but is <led against
the driver of ST Bus and even charge-sheet is also <led 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 speci<c 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 oKending vehicle is taken at the <rst
instance. Considering the aforesaid fact, the argument canvassed by
the learned advocate that the claimant was contributorily negligent


                                Page 5 of 7
    C/FA/4270/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




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 suKering,
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         Rs.50,000/-
        life
      6 Loss of Earning of attendant                Rs.72,000/-


                                Page 6 of 7
    C/FA/4270/2025                                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 06/01/2026




        7 Pain, shock and suKering and loss of Rs.4,00,000/-
          amenities of life
        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 veri<cation 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.

                                                                                      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 06/01/2026 18:14:44




                                                  Page 7 of 7