IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 312 of 2024 With R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 137 of 2024 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 312 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus NIRMALABEN RAMANLAL SOLANKI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MAYUR RAJGURU(1198) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 VEDANT J RAJGURU(9375) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 20/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant – Corporation against the judgment and award dated 31.01.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 183 of 2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has held the appellant –

corporation liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

2. Cross Objection No. 137 of 2024 has been preferred by the original claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the same is on the lower side and requires enhancement. The liability fastened upon the Corporation, which is the appellant herein, by the learned Tribunal is stated to be in accordance with law and not warranting any interference by this Court.

3. Heard Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation, Mr. Mayur Rajguru, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Ms. Kirti S Pathak, learned advocate for respondent No.3. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.2010, the deceased, along with his family members, was returning to Ahmedabad from Ambaji in a car bearing registration No. GJ-14- E-4514. At that time, the said car was being driven by the deceased while observing the traffic rules. At around 5:00 p.m., when they were near Salipur Village, the ST bus bearing registration No. GJ-18-V-9966, driven by opponent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came onto the wrong side of the road while overtaking a camel cart and dashed into the car driven by the deceased. As a result, the car was damaged and the passengers travelling therein, including the deceased, sustained injuries.

5. Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate for the appellant– Corporation, submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding the driver of the offending ST bus 100%

negligent. She contended that the alleged accident occurred between the car and the ST bus, and that the driver of the car was also negligent. According to her, the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the car driver, and therefore, the entire liability ought not to have been fastened upon the ST bus driver. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating opponent Nos. 4 and 5 – the Insurance Company. Since the claimants/deceased were travelling in the car at the time of the accident, and the accident was a head-on collision, both drivers ought to have been held equally negligent. It was also submitted that at the conclusion of the trial, the driver of the ST bus was acquitted, and the said acquittal was confirmed by the appellate court. Therefore, the question of holding opponent No. 1 – the ST bus driver – solely negligent does not arise. Learned advocate further contended that the complainant–claimant was not an eye-witness to the accident. The panchnama of the scene of occurrence clearly indicates that a tree had fallen on the road, and while the vehicles were passing through the said road, the alleged accident took place. If a tree had fallen on the road, it was the duty of