IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 788 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

==========================================================

ARIFBHAI USMANBHAI VOHRA & ANR.

Versus YUSUFBHAI YASINBHAI MIRZA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MR RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 18/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT [1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), at Kheda, Nadiad (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.167 of 2014, the appellants herein – original claimants have filed present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1881 (for short “MV Act”), whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the present appellants.

[2.0] Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi for the appellants – original claimants and learned Advocate Mr. Rahul Dholakia appearing for respondent No.2 – insurance company of stationary vehicle.

Perused the original record and proceedings.

[3.0] It is the case of the appellants that on 11.08.2013 at around 9.30 p.m., while the deceased Maazmohammed Ariftbhai Vohra (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was plying his Activa and when he reached near the place of accident, one Eicher bearing registration No.GJ-1-CU-3911 was parked on pakka road without any indicator and reflector and eyes of deceased dazzled with the light of vehicles coming from opposite direction because of which the deceased dashed his Activa with stationary Eicher from behind as a result of which deceased sustained serious injuries on various parts of the body and ultimately succumbed to the said injuries. Therefore, the appellants filed MAC Petition seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakh wherein the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record was pleased to partly allow the claim petition by holding the deceased – driver of Activa Scooter to be 70% contributory negligent and held the driver of stationary Eicher to be 30% contributory negligent for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.5,84,100/- however, deducted 70% towards contributory negligence of the deceased and hence, the claimants was held entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,75,230/-. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award, the present appellants – original claimants have filed the present appeal.

[4.0] Though called out twice in both the sessions, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – insurance company has chosen not to appear before this Court.

[5.0] Learned Advocate Mr. Bhalodi appearing for the appellants – original claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the deceased – driver of Activa was 70% contributory negligent though Eicher was parked on the pakka road without any indicators and reflectors though 30% contributory negligence is considered on the part of driver of stationary Eicher and to that extent the learned Tribunal has committed an error. He has further submitted that though the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence and observed that Eicher was parked on pakka road without any indicator or reflector, still the learned Tribunal has held 70% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased – driver of Activa Scooter and the learned Tribunal ought to have considered 100% negligence on the part of driver of Eicher which was parked on the pakka road without any indicator or reflector. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has com