IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2165 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI ==========================================================

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

SURESHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL SINCE DECD. THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.

Versus YUSUFBHAI R VAHORA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2 MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,4,5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 09/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Aux), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.75 of 2004, whereby the learned Tribunal had rejected the claim petition with costs.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal is that on 25.12.2003, the deceased Sureshbhai Ambalal Patel being driver, was driving Eicher tempo bearing registration No.GJ-7-Y-2200 belonging to respondent-1 herein and while he was passing through National Highway No.8 near Palej village in Baroda rural area, in the meantime the respondent No.3- herein came by driving the Eicher tempo bearing registration No.GJ-1- UU-5261 in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the brakes and thereby both the vehicles dashed with each other. In the said accident, deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was taking to Krishna Hospital at Karamsad where during the treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 01.03.2004. It has been averred that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by doing the driving, therefore, they filed the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. Having been served with the summons of the claim petition, the respondent No.1, 3 & 4 have chosen not to appear. However, the Insurance Company of both the vehicles i.e. respondent No.2 & 5 filed the written statement at Exh-49 thereby denying factum of age, income and occupation.

4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had rejected the claim petition on the ground that the negligence was not proved.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimants/appellants has preferred the captioned appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and award.

6. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

7. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants/appellants- herein, vehemently submitted that the claim petition came to be filed under Section 163-A of the M. V. Act. Therefore, the issue of negligence is not required to be interfered with. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Sunil Kumar and Anr, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 398

8. So far as the quantum is concerned, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants, vehemently submitted that in view of the Section 164 of the M. V. Act, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- ought to have been awarded. He further submitted that by way of amendment new Section came to be inserted in M. V. Act and as per new Section 164, the original claimants/appellants are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. He further submitted that considering the benevolent object of the Act, the Supreme Court has made applicable Section 164 retrospectively. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Urm