Modification of Judgment dtd. 26/02/2026 in R/FA/332/2024

0.02577193638489217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 332 of 2024 [On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 26/02/2026 in R/FA/332/2024 ]

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

LILIBEN AJMALBHAI THAKOR Versus SHIRAJBHAI SUBHANBHAI BHATTI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 20/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Present note for speaking to minutes is filed stating that the captioned matter was listed for hearing before this Court, wherein this Court was pleased to pass order dated 26.02.2026. It is stated that due to inadvertence, the order mentions Section 164 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act, whereas the correct provision is Section 163A as amended vide notification dated 22.05.2018 and the same was annexed at Page 26 of the petition. It is further stated that as per proviso 2 of the amended Schedule, the correct amount of compensation is Rs.5,25,000/-, whereas the judgment mentions Rs.5,00,000/-.

2. The Court, upon perusal, has observed that what has been stated is correct and, therefore, no issue is made

NEUTRAL CITATION

0.02577193638489217

out, inasmuch as the original order has been passed on merits.

3. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Ors. Vs. Brijlal Tibrewal & Ors., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 684, a note for Speaking to Minutes is required to be entertained only for the limited purpose of correcting a typographical error or an error through oversight, which may have crept in while transcribing the original order. A note for Speaking to Minutes cannot be considered at par with an application for clarification/modification of an order.

4. If the petitioner wants to challenge the said order then he has to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate Court.

5. In view of above facts, the note for Speaking to Minutes filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner does not fall within the purview of “note for Speaking to Minutes”. Accordingly, present note for speaking to minutes is dismissed (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

STANCY GOMES R/FA/332/2024 0.02577193638489217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 332 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

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

LILIBEN AJMALBHAI THAKOR Versus SHIRAJBHAI SUBHANBHAI BHATTI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 26/02/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “MVAct”) being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 14.12.2023 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), District Patan in MACP No.269 of 2019.

2. The facts rise to leading an appeal are as under:-

2.1 It is the case of the appellant that at the time of accident deceased Minor Soniben was 13 year’s old. It is also stated by the applicant that, on account of untimely death of the deceased, the applicant has lost her R/FA/332/2024 0.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document