Gujarat High Court
Kiranbhai Haredrabhai Vasava vs Hiteshbhai Bhailalbhai Patel on 26 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3901/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3901 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KIRANBHAI HAREDRABHAI VASAVA & ORS.
Versus
HITESHBHAI BHAILALBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 26/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Original Claimants against the judgment and award dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Patan in MACP No.75 of 2023.
2. Heard Mr. Mohsin M Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants and Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate for respondent No.2. Though served, none appears for respondent No.1.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering the issue of negligence, as the petition is filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and assessment of 50% negligence on the part of the deceased by the Tribunal is unjust and improper.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Feb 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:31:01 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3901/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined The apportionment of liability and assessment of negligence are also not permissible in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company v. Sunil Kumar, (2014) 1 SCC 580. Hence, it is requested that the present appeal be allowed.
4. On the contrary, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on record. It was contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the documents on record, it is undisputed and admitted fact that the claim petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads with interest from the date of the petition. As per the case of claimants, on 27.01.2023, deceased was proceeding from village Nani Chilchli towards Rajpipla on his motorcycle bearing No. GJ- 22-N-0573. Near IOCL Petrol Pump on Rajpipla-Ankleshwar Highway, within the sim of village Kunvarpura, an ST Bus bearing No. GJ-18-Z-6058, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by opponent No.1, dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting in the accident. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Feb 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:31:01 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3901/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined
6. In view of the above, it appears that two vehicles were involved it he alleged accident. The learned Tribunal has considered the compensation and the second schedule of the MV Act and awarded total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- but considered 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, hence slash down 50% compensation i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-. As claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the MV Act, learned Tribunal ought to have considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra) wherein the the Hon'ble supreme court has come to the conclusion that the liability to make the compensation under section 163A of the MV Act on the principle of the no fault liability and when deciding the claim petition under section 163A, the question who is at fault is immaterial and for end to an inquiry under Section 163A of the MV Act as the same does not make any provision for the apportionment of the liability. Para 8 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra) read as under:
"8. We are, therefore, of the view that liability to make compensation under Section 163-A is on the principle of no fault and, therefore, the question as to who is at fault is immaterial and foreign to an enquiry under Section 163-A. Section 163-A does not make any provision for apportionment of the liability. If the owner of the vehicle or the insurance company is permitted to prove contributory negligence or default or wrongful act on the part of the victim or claimant, naturally it would defeat the very object and purpose of Section 163A of the Act. Legislature never wanted the claimant to plead or establish negligence on the part of the owner or the driver. Once it is established that death or permanent disablement occurred during the course of the user of the vehicle and the vehicle is insured, the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be, shall be liable to Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Feb 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:31:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3901/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined pay the compensation, which is a statutory obligation."
7. Even as per the decision in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 719, the nature and object of a claim filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act have been discussed, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that there is no requirement for the claimant to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement, in respect of which the claim has been made, was due to any wrongful act, neglect, or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Para 14 and 17 of the said judgment reads as under:
"14.Section 163-A of the MVA was inserted by Act 54 of 1994 by way of a social security scheme. It is needless to say that the said provision is a code by itself. The said provision has been inserted to provide for a new predetermined structured formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income of the deceased or the person suffering permanent disablement. In view of the language used in said section there could be no manner of doubt that the said provision has an overriding effect as it contains a non obstante clause in terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer is liable to pay compensation in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
17. The aforesaid decisions make it quite clear that the Parliament by introducing Section 163-A in the MVA provided for payment of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be in a claim made under sub- section (1) of Section 163-A of the MVA. In order to prove a claim of this nature the claimant would not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Feb 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:31:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3901/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/02/2026 undefined disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned."
8. As an additional premium was also paid, the learned Tribunal committed an error in not deciding the claim petition on the basis of no-fault liability. Consequently, the learned Tribunal erred in attributing 50% negligence to the deceased and in reducing the compensation on that basis. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and enhanced from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside qua the finding attributing 50% negligence to the deceased and the consequent deduction of 50% of the awarded amount. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The claimants shall be entitled to recover the additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the opponents jointly and severally, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent insurance company shall deposit the said amount of compensation along with interest before the learned Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Record and Proceedings shall be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Feb 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:31:01 IST 2026