IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3006 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

ARCHANABEN VIJAYBHAI RATHOD & ORS.

Versus JAYDIPSINH NAGJIBHAI GOHIL & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 09/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT [1.0] By way of present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants – original claimants have assailed the impugned judgment and award dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.852/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition in favor of the original claimants by holding driver of Motorcycle No.GJ- 06-JH-9007 to be 80% negligent and deceased motorcyclist to be 20% contributory negligent for the accident and directed the respondent – original opponent No.3 – insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.11,60,960/- to the original claimants after deducting 20% (Rs.2,90,240/-) from total compensation of Rs.14,51,200/- towards contributory negligence of the deceased motorcyclist with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeals and cross-

objections are as follows:

[2.1] On 03.07.2015, Vijaybhai Arvindbhai Rathod (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was returning towards his home from village Chelawala by riging his motorcycle and his friend Maheshbhai Mali was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle and when they reached at the place of accident, original opponent No.1 – driver of Motorcycle No.GJ-06-JH-9007 came driving his motorcycle with full speed in rash and negligent manner with full speed and dashed from behind the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the original claimants – legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30 lakh.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced on record by the respective parties, learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold the original opponent No.1 negligent to the extent of 80% and deceased motorcyclist 20% contributory negligent for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.11,60,960/- to the original claimants after deducting Rs.2,90,240/- (towards 20% negligence of the deceased motorcyclist) alongwith 9% interest per annum. Hence, present First Appeal is filed by the appellants – original claimants challenging 20% contributory negligence of the deceased motorcyclist as well as seeking enhancement of compensation.

[3.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have chosen not to appear before the Court.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding the deceased motorcyclist to be 20% contributory negligent for the accident merely because he was driving the motorcycle and learned Tribunal ought to have considered 100% negligence on the part of original opponent No.1. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not properly appreciating the evidence and meager amount of compensation is awarded. He has further argued that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating that the deceased was working on contract basis with Baroda Dairy and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Even, the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation under the conventional heads and d