GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusASMITABEN KISHORBHAI CHAUHAN

    C/FA/4471/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4471 of 2024

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting             Yes          No
                                                         √
==========================================================
         GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                              Versus
            ASMITABEN KISHORBHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 02/02/2026
                             ORAL JUDGMENT


      Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah waives service of
notice of Admission for and on behalf of the respondents. With the
consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties,
present appeal is taken up for 昀椀nal hearing today.

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is 昀椀led by the appellant – Gujarat State
Road Transport Corporation challenging the impugned judgment and
award dated 30.03.2024 by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special), Rajkot (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.1537 of 2018, whereby the learned
Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition by holding the
appellant – GSRTC solely liable to pay compensation of Rs.23,10,000/-
to the original claimants.



                                 Page 1 of 5
    C/FA/4471/2024                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




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

[2.1] On 12.10.2018, the deceased Kishorbhai Mohanbhai Chauhan
was riding his motorcycle on his extreme side of the road and when he
reached at the place of accident, driver of S.T. Bus No.GJ-18-Z-1785
came driving his ST Bus with full speed in rash and negligent manner
and hit the motorcycle of the deceased from behind thereby causing
fatal injuries to the deceased due to which the deceased died.
Therefore, the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased i.e.
original claimants 昀椀led MACP No.1537/2018 seeking compensation of
Rs.32 lakh.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the
learned Tribunal held the driver of ST Bus solely negligent for the
accident and was pleased to award Rs.23,10,000/- to the original
claimants. However, the GSRTC being aggrieved with 100% liability
saddled on the GSRTC as well as on the ground of exorbitant
compensation being awarded to the claimants, present First Appeal is
昀椀led by the appellant – GSRTC.

[3.0] Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia appearing for the
appellant – GSRTC has submitted that the learned Tribunal has
committed an error in not considering contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased motorcyclist as he was riding the motorcycle
with full speed rashly and negligently. She has further argued that
despite there being no any evidence with regard to income of the
deceased, learned Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount of
compensation. Hence, she has requested to allow the present appeal.

[4.0] Learned        advocate   Mr.      Hemal      Shah   appearing      for       the
respondents – original claimants has opposed the present appeal by


                                      Page 2 of 5
    C/FA/4471/2024                            JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




submitting that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in
holding the driver of ST Bus to be solely negligent for the accident.
Even, the driver of ST Bus against whom charge-sheet is 昀椀led, is not
examined to rebut the presumption and therefore, learned Tribunal
has rightly appreciated the evidence namely complaint, panchnama.
Hence, he has requested to dismiss the 昀椀rst appeal.

[5.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant – GSRTC and
learned advocate for the original claimants and perusing the record, it
appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence
produced and adduced by both the parties including the a昀케davit of
claimant No.1 (Exh.15), complaint (Exh.18), panchnama of scene of
accident (Exh.19) and perusing the same, it appears that the alleged
accident took place while deceased was riding his motorcycle on the
correct side of the road and ST Bus dashed on the back side of the
motorcycle. Charge-sheet is 昀椀led against the driver of ST Bus. The
driver of the ST Bus was eye-winess and can be said to be best witness
however, he has not been examined to rebut the presumption that
the ST driver was solely negligent and therefore, in view of 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, wherein it is held that
negligence is required to be proved in claim petition under section 166
of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of
probability and not beyond doubt, the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of ST
Bus was solely negligent for the accident.

[6.0] Perusing the record, it appears that the accident took place in
the year 2018 and the deceased was skilled person engaged in



                               Page 3 of 5
    C/FA/4471/2024                            JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




masonry work and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month however,
considering minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident, in
absence of any evidence with regard to income of deceased, learned
Tribunal has considered monthly income of Rs.10,000/- of the
deceased to award just and proper compensation which does not call
for any interference by this Court in view of decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance
Company Ltd. [(2011)10 SCC 683] and Chandra @ Chanda @
Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav reported in (2022)1 SCC 198
and thus, the annual income of the deceased is assessed at
Rs.1,20,000/- at the time of accident. Further, the learned Tribunal
relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 has also considered addition of 40% towards
future prospects of the deceased and accordingly, arrived at
Rs.1,68,000/- towards future yearly loss of income. As the deceased
was having six family members, in view of the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the
learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th amount i.e. Rs.42,000/-
from Rs.1,68,000/- and therefore, applying the multiplier of 16 as the
deceased was in the age group of 31 to 35 years, the learned Tribunal
has rightly awarded Rs.20,16,000/- (Rs.1,26,000 x 16) towards future
loss of dependency. Even, the compensation under the head of loss of
consortium, in view of the decisions 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 is also
appropriately awarded. Even, under other heads also, just and proper
compensation is awarded which does not call for any interference.

                               Page 4 of 5
       C/FA/4471/2024                                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026




[7.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal stands
dismissed. The appellant herein – Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation             is     directed          to       deposit          the       compensation                of
Rs.23,10,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, alongwith accrued
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with the learned Tribunal within
a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of the present
judgment, if not deposited.

[8.0] Thereafter, 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昀椀cation and after following due procedure, strictly as
per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal.

[9.0] 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.
         It is made clear that, in view of dismissal of First Appeal, stay
granted vide order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench,
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 02/02/2026 18:21:25




                                                   Page 5 of 5