Gujarat High Court
Goswami Ghanshyamgiri Fulgiri vs Patel Jaimilkumar Bhanubhai on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4023 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GOSWAMI GHANSHYAMGIRI FULGIRI & ANR.
Versus
PATEL JAIMILKUMAR BHANUBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.SHASHIKANT PARMAR(6346) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR GULREJ A SAIYED(3694) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,4
MR.SANAT B PANDYA(6976) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 13.08.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & 2 nd Additional District Judge, Anand, in M.A.C.P. No. 313 of 2006, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,76,464/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-Six Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Four Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 23:11:14 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal, as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
i. On 06.05.2006 at about 5:30 p.m., the son of the original claimants/appellants herein - Mr. Dilrajgiri Ghanshyamgiri Goswami (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), was riding one Motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-23-E-7509 on the road leading to Piplav from Kasor village, at very moderate speed. When he reached the place of accident, one dog suddenly came on the middle of the road and as a result, original opponent No.3/respondent No.3 herein, who was coming from the opposite direction by driving one motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-23-E-7112 in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over his vehicle and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the said vehicular accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, and he succumbed to the said injuries during treatment.
ii. It is also the case of the original claimants/appellants herein before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 21 years and he was working as a Helper with Arvind Electrical Contract Company, thereby earning Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 23:11:14 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the Original Claimants/appellants herein preferred the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.4,77,500/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, original opponent No.1 and original opponent No.3, had chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal, while, the Insurance Company - National Insurance Company Limited, filed its Written Statement at Exh.21, thereby denying the averments made in the Claim Petition in toto, and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record and the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,60,773/- and thereafter, deducted 40% of the said amount on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. As such, after deducting 40%, a sum of Rs.2,76,464/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-Six Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Four Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded as Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 23:11:14 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined compensation to the original claimants/appellants herein.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimants/appellants herein has filed the captioned appeal, thereby challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. At the outset, Mr. Shashikant Parmar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants/appellants herein submitted that though the Claim Petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, however, the learned Tribunal without appreciating the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, deducted 40% of the compensation on account of the contributory negligence of the deceased himself. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought not to have deducted 40% of the amount of compensation on account of the self-negligence of the deceased. He contended that the aspect of negligence has no relevance in a Claim Petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, hence, submitted that the captioned appeal deserves to be allowed, and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. M. R. Prajapati appearing on behalf of Mr. V. C. Thomas, learned counsel Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 23:11:14 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, as such, contended that the instant appeal deserves to be rejected.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to be noted that the impugned judgment and award has been challenged on the ground of deduction of compensation, on account of self-negligence of the deceased.
7. The Claim Petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal under the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. In a Claim Petition preferred under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, the aspect of negligence has no relevance and hence, the learned Tribunal ought not to have deducted 40% of the awarded amount on account of the self- negligence of the deceased. Further, the issue of negligence in the Claim Petition preferred under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act is no more res integra, as it has been settled in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and Anr. reported in (2019) 12 SCC 398, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :-
".....8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 23:11:14 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim."
8. Thus, in view of the settled position of law, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal had committed gross illegality in deducting 40% of the awarded amount on account of self-negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 23:11:14 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/02/2026 undefined impugned judgment and award is required to modified and accordingly, the original claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for a compensation to the tune of Rs.4,60,773/-.
9. In view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands allowed partly, and the impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly.
10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation, i.e., the amount of compensation deducted on account of self-negligence of the deceased, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, within a period of six weeks from today. Upon depositing the awarded amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the original claimants/appellants herein (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
11. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN.
Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Feb 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 05 23:11:14 IST 2026