C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1030 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================ Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================ GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus BALOCH UMARKHAN CHANUKHAN & ORS. ============================================ Appearance: MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 23/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Mahesana at Visnagar (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in MAC Petition No.62 of 2015, the appellant – original opponent no.2 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “Corporation / GSRTC” for short) has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short). Page 1 of 8 C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026 2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw learned Advocate for the appellant – Corporation, whereas, despite service of notice to the respondents they remained absent. 3) It is the case of the appellant that on 30.08.2015 at about 10:00 am when the deceased – Mahammadkhan Umarkhan Baloch (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased”) was riding his motorcycle in the moderate speed and in correct side of the road, at that time, the driver of ST Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18- Y-7509 came from Kheralu side in a negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased and thereby accident was occurred. As a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Therefore, the original claimants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition. 4) Learned Advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw, for the appellant – Corporation has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the negligence as the deceased himself was negligent the Tribunal ought to have considered contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as while riding the motorcycle he was talking on the mobile phone and alleged incident took place. Even relying on the order of the p. 2 C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026 acquittal in criminal case and deceased had not wore headgear / helmet. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the certified copy of the statement before the police which are produced in the criminal case and ought to have considered contributory negligence of the deceased. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal also erred in assessing the income of the deceased only Rs.7238.40 paisa per month though there was nothing on record about his educational qualification, employment / business. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal. 5) Having heard the learned Advocate for the appellant – Corporation and going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered the affidavit at Exhibit 17 wherein all the facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the claim petition. The learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence produced on record i.e. FIR at Exhibit 24, panchnama at Exhibit 25, inquest panchnama at Exhibit 33 which also reveals that the p. 3 C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026 deceased sustained injuries and died in the accident. Perusing the record it appears that no rebuttal evidence is produced on record or no material which suggest that at the time of accident the deceased was talking on mobile phone and while making overtake the ST Bus the accident was occurred. If we accept the arguments as it is then also mere bare words are not enough to prove contributory negligence and who assert the fact must prove the same. The contributory negligence cannot be presumed and the same must be proved by the evidence with preponderance of probabilities as standard. In this regard reference is required to be drawn from the case of Shrikrishna Kanta Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Ors., Neutral Citation – 2025 INSC 394, hence, arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant is not acceptable in absence of any material or evidence on record. In view of above, in absence of any material or evidence learned Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion and held driver of the offending vehicle ST bus sole negligent. 6) Now coming to the quantum part, in case of non production of any evidence or material of income of the deceased it is the duty of the GSRTC to brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal the rates of minimum wages of the date of accident even otherwise it is the duty of the Tribunal to award just compensation as per p. 4 C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026 Section 168 of the MV Act. If we consider the aforesaid fact the learned Tribunal has not committed any error keeping in mind the prevalent rate of minimum wages and at that time for unskilled labour the rate was Rs.278.40 paisa per day and for 26 days net pay would be Rs.7,238/- hence the income assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.7,238.40 paisa per month is just and proper and up to that extent the learned Tribunal has not committed any error. 7) Further, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 23 years at the time of accident on the basis of which the learned Tribunal has further considered future prospective income as 40% and as the deceased was having 4 dependents 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 18 were considered by the learned Tribunal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] which are just and proper. 8) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the three conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to be reassessed as p. 5 C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026 Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the respondent nos.1 to 4 – original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral expenses). 9) Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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, the learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the respondent nos.1 to 4 herein – original claimants being legal heirs of the deceased they are entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.1,93,600/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 4). Therefore, the respondent nos.1 to 4 – original claimants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.1,53,600/- under the head of loss of consortium. 10) As discussed above, the original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under: p. 6 C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026 Heads Awarded by Tribunal Reassessed by this Court Loss of dependency Rs.16,41,669/- Rs.16,41,669/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/- including additional amount of Rs.3,150/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,150/- including additional amount of Rs.3,150/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,93,600/- including additional amount of Rs.1,53,600/- (Rs.48,400/- X 4) Total compensation Rs.17,11,669/- Rs.18,71,569/- including total additional amount of Rs.1,59,900/- 11) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.17,11,669/-, however, as discussed above the respondent nos.1 to 4 herein – original claimants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,59,900/- (Rs.18,71,569/- - Rs.17,11,669/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 12) It is pertinent to note here that in the case on hand the original claimants remained absent but perusing the record prima facie it appears that the learned Tribunal failed to award just and proper compensation and hence keeping in mind the Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 168 of the MV Act and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindrakumar Sharma vs. State of Assam reported in p. 7 C/FA/1030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2026 (1999) 7 SCC 435 and in the case of Saurav Jain and Another vs. A.B.P. Design and Another reported in (2022)18 SCC 633, no bar to consider the aforesaid fact and modification in absence of the claimant in appeal. 13) Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant – GSRTC stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment and award dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (AUXI.IV), Mahesana at Visnagar, in MAC Petition No.62 of 2015 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The appellant herein – GSRTC shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.1,59,900/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 15) Award to be drawn accordingly. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI p. 8