Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 566
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 Defendants : Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar.
A claim petition for motor accident compensation filed by a legal representative is maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act even if the claimant was not dependent on the deceased, as the status of a legal representative is not synonymous with being a dependent.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166(1) and 166(1)(c) - Death in motor accident - Claimants being non-dependent siblings - Maintainability of petition by legal representatives - Whether dependency is a mandatory condition for claiming compensation. (Paras 14, 15, 16)
(B) Negligence - Determination in motor accident cases - Reliance on documentary and oral evidence - Presence of offending vehicle at site and admission of parties serves as sufficient basis to fix liability - Appellate courts should not interfere with findings based on credible evidence unless perverse. (Paras 13, 21)
(C) Legal Representative - Interpretation of the term under beneficial legislation - Definition is not restricted to dependents - Siblings of the deceased are qualified to maintain a claim petition as legal representatives under the Act, irrespective of their dependency status. (Paras 18, 20, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged a tribunal award in a motor accident death claim, contending that negligence was not adequately proven and that the claimants, being brothers of the deceased, lacked locus standi as they were not dependent on the deceased. The trial resulted in an award of compensation, which was upheld by the lower court.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the tribunal's finding of negligence, noting that it was supported by the site panchnama and the testimony of the driver involved. It further clarified that the statutory framework for compensation allows legal representatives to seek redress regardless of whether they were financially dependent on the deceased.
Issues: The central issues were whether the evidence sufficiently established the driver's negligence and whether the non-dependent brothers of the deceased could maintain a compensation petition as legal representatives under the governing statute.
Ratio Decidendi: The term 'legal representative' must be given a wider, non-restrictive interpretation consistent with the objective of providing relief in tortious claims. Dependency is not a prerequisite for filing a claim under the statutory provisions, and siblings satisfy the criteria of legal representatives entitled to seek justice for the death of a family member.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of claim petition origins, accident facts, and grounds for initial appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding driver negligence and the legal standing of non-dependent siblings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. assessment of evidence documenting rash and negligent driving. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. interpretation of 'legal representative' under section 166 of the motor vehicles act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal and enforcement of original 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
