C/FA/1845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1845 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔ ========================================================== JAYVANTIBEN MANOJKUMAR CHAUHAN & ORS. Versus ABHISHEK S/O ANANT TELI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 15/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant Company against the judgment and award dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Godhra. 2. Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Harsh Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent No.3. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.05.2021, the deceased, Manojkumar Narendrasinh Chauhan, was riding Motorcycle No. GJ-17-BR-2267 and was proceeding from Signali to Lunawada. At about 16:00 hours, while passing through Signali village on the highway road near Sarvottam Hotel, the Maruti Car bearing No. MH-02-EK-1452, driven by opponent C/FA/1845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2025 No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at excessive speed, lost control and dashed into the motorcycle from behind. As a result of the said accident, Manojkumar Narendrasinh Chauhan sustained fatal injuries and succumbed thereto. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased in the absence of any supporting evidence. It was contended that the respondent failed to examine any eye-witness or the driver of the offending vehicle. Despite the absence of such evidence, the learned Tribunal straightway fastened 10% contributory negligence upon the deceased. It was further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle; however, the said driver did not step into the witness-box to rebut the evidence on record. On this limited ground, the present appeal has been filed, and therefore, the same deserves to be allowed. 5. On the contrary, the 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 learned Tribunal has not committed any error in attributing contributory negligence. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. The learned advocate relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Heirs of Deceased Chetankumar Babulal Mehta v. Rajkumar Radhesing Rajput, reported in 2024 Supreme (Guj) 143, and submitted that attribution of 10% C/FA/1845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2025 negligence to the motorcyclist is justified and, in view of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the present appeal is filed on the limited issue of liability, wherein the learned Tribunal has attributed 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. As the remaining part of the judgment qua quantum has not been challenged, this Court has not examined the same. 7. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it emerges that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the decisions of Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, and has appreciated the evidence on record, including the oral evidence of the widow of the deceased at Exhibit 19. In support of the claim petition, the claimant relied upon the complaint at Exhibit 22, the panchnama at Exhibit 23, and the post-mortem report at Exhibit 25. 8. It is an undisputed and admitted fact that the deceased succumbed to grievous head injuries and that cardio-respiratory arrest due to head injury was the cause of death. The driver of the offending vehicle did not step into the witness-box and did not lead any evidence to rebut the evidence tendered by the claimant. Consequently, the learned Tribunal has rightly drawn C/FA/1845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2025 an adverse inference against the driver of the offending vehicle. 9. A perusal of the evidence on record, including the panchnama at Exhibit 23 and other documentary evidence, clearly reveals that the offending car had hit the motorcycle from behind and that the motorcycle was badly damaged at the rear portion. This clearly establishes that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident. The charge-sheet has been filed against the said driver, and he has failed to enter the witness-box to rebut the evidence on record. 10. However, the learned Tribunal has attributed 10% contributory negligence to the deceased on the ground that he was not wearing headgear at the time of the accident. It is pertinent to note that, except for one stray averment in the written statement filed by the insurance company, no independent evidence or material has been produced before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was not wearing a helmet or that there was any breach of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the deceased was not wearing a helmet, the mere assumption that he might have survived had he been wearing one cannot, by itself, be a ground to attribute contributory negligence to him. What is required to be examined is in what manner and to what extent the deceased contributed to the occurrence of the accident. It must be established how the non-wearing of a C/FA/1845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2025 helmet had any nexus with the cause of the accident itself. Contributory negligence must be proved on the basis of cogent material and on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In the absence of any such evidence, contributory negligence cannot be attributed merely on conjectures or assumptions. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2025 INSC 394, wherein it has been held that negligence must be established by evidence applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities, and that mere non-wearing of a helmet or headgear does not, by itself, indicate negligence on the part of the deceased. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased. The judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent in the case of Heirs of Deceased Chetankumar Babulal Mehta (supra) does not render any assistance in the facts of the present case, as there is no material or evidence on record to establish that, on the date of the accident, the deceased was not wearing a helmet or that the alleged non-wearing of a helmet had any nexus with the occurrence of the accident. 13. This is a clear case where a charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, and the evidence on record establishes that the offending vehicle had dashed the motorcycle from behind. Hence, considering the degree of care C/FA/1845/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2025 and the standard expected while driving a motor vehicle, the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal for attributing contributory negligence are unsustainable, and to that extent, the learned Tribunal has committed an error. 14. On an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Godhra, insofar as it attributes 10% contributory negligence to the deceased, is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the remaining 10% amount of compensation, as the claimants are entitled to receive the entire amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, i.e. Rs.32,57,032/-, together with interest and costs, as awarded. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with accrued interest before the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from today. Upon such deposit, the learned Tribunal shall disburse and release the entire awarded amount in favour of the claimants, after due verification, by transferring the said amount to the claimants’ bank accounts through RTGS/NEFT. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings, if any, to the learned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (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 16/12/2025 16:15:55