Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J.
Ahmedbhai Sharafatali Sai & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Keshubhai Mohanbhai Parmar & Ors. - Defendants
R/First Appeal No. 3579 of 2014
Decided On : 11-06-2026
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya.
For the Defendant : Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar.
The definition of legal representative in fatal accident claims under the relevant statute is broad and inclusive. Siblings are entitled to maintain a compensation claim as legal representatives, regardless of their financial dependency on the deceased, given the statute's nature as beneficial legislation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Death in motor accident - Claim petition by siblings - Maintainability - Whether legal representatives must be dependents to file claim - Held, statute is beneficial legislation requiring wide interpretation of 'legal representative' - Siblings qualify as legal representatives and are entitled to maintain claim petition regardless of whether they were financially dependent upon the deceased - Such claims are maintainable in representative capacity for loss of life/estate. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 24)
(B) Negligence - Proof - Appreciation of evidence - Tribunal's finding upheld where evidence, including panchnama and witness testimony, established rash and negligent driving - Findings of Fact by lower court cannot be interfered with if based on cogent, admissible evidence. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The family members of the deceased filed a compensation claim following a fatal collision. The owners and driver of the offending vehicle challenged the award, arguing that the claimants, being brothers of the deceased, were not financially dependent and therefore lacked standing to claim compensation. The appellants also contested the finding of negligence against the driver.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the definition of legal representatives is broad and inclusive under the relevant statutory framework. Dependency is not a mandatory condition for filing a claim under the provision. The evidence presented during the trial conclusively proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent actions of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Issues: The main issues were whether siblings who were not financially dependent on the deceased possess the legal standing to maintain a claim petition under the statute, and whether the finding of negligence against the driver was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the statute in question is a beneficial instrument. It holds that the right to claim compensation is not limited to dependents, and legal representatives have the right to seek damages; therefore, the brother of a deceased person is a competent claimant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contextual introduction and history of the claim petition and appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contention on collision negligence and standing of non-dependent siblings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. verification of driver negligence based on empirical documentation. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. siblings qualify as legal representatives under section 166 mv act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal and enforcement of original tribunal award. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 06.09.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surat in MACP No.633/1995, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on 04.02.1994, the deceased was travelling on his luna moped bearing registration no.GRH 5049 at very moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When he reached at the place of accident, the appellant no.1 herein came by driving a truck bearing registration no.GRU 3723 at an excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the deceased and caused the accident. Due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
3. On being served, the appellant nos.1 and 2 filed their respective written statements at Exh.54 and Exh.22, while the respondent no.4/insurance company filed its written statement at Exh.16 and thereby denying all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of negligence and the maintainability of the claim petition on behalf of brothers of the deceased.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/owner and driver of the offending vehicle submitted that the involvement of the vehicle and the negligence of the appellant/driver was not proved on record; however, the learned Tribunal has held that the appellant/driver of the offending vehicle was negligent for causing the accident. He further submitted that the negligence has not been proved on record, therefore, the finding returned by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable and the same is required to be modified.
8. Learned counsel for the the appellants further submitted that the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 3 herein are the brothers of the deceased, therefore, they were not dependent upon the deceased, and hence they are not entitled to get the compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants placed the reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sadhana Tomar Vs. Ashok Kushwaha , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554, Anju Mukhi & Anr. Vs. Satish K. Bhatia & Ors., reported in (2010) 15 SCC 630 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Anand Pal , reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 73185. Having placed the reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the captioned appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3/original claimants vehemently
