IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 621 of 2022 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1417 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

LEGAL HEIRS AND DEPENDENTS OF DECD. MAYURBHAI JESINGBHAI DHUDA MINABEN JESINGBHAI DHUDA & ANR.

Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER ============================================

Appearance:

MR MONAL S CHAGLANI(10240) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MS ESHA S. BHAVSAR FOR AISHVARYA(8018) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 10/12/2025 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident against the MAC Petition No.52 of 2019, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 28.01.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in MAC Petition No.52 of 2019, the appellants – original claimants have filed First Appeal No.621 of 2022 and opponent no.1 – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “Corporation / GSRTC” for short) has filed First Appeal No.1417 of 2022, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).

2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Chaglani learned Advocate for the appellants – original claimants and learned Advocate Ms. E. S. Bhavsar on behalf of Aishvarya for respondent – Corporation.

Perused the original record and proceedings.

3) It is the case of the appellants that on 24.02.2019 one Mayurbhai Jesinghbhai Dhuda (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “deceased / motorcyclist”) along with his sister Sejalben and niece Bhavnaben were proceeding on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-11-DF-8942, from Magharvada to Keshod and when they reached on Keshod Junagadh Highway at about 03:00 O’clock one ST Bus bearing Reg. No.GJ-18-Y-8693, came from the opposite side driving the bus in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle driven by the Mayurbhai. As a result of which Mayurbhai and Sejalben sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to it, whereas, Bhavnaben sustained injuries. Therefore, the appellants – claimants being legal heirs of the deceased had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.

4) Learned Advocate Mr. M. S. Chaglani, for the original claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering 10% contributory negligence of the deceased in absence of any evidence. Merely head on collision is there and in every cases of head on collision the contributory negligence is not required to be considered. The deceased was driving LMV vehicle whereas the offending vehicle bus is a heavy vehicle and the learned Tribunal has ignored the said aspect and straightaway fastened the liability of motorcyclist on the ground that he was riding motorcycle along with two pillion riders in total three persons were riding on the said motorcycle is not a ground to automatically consider contributory negligence in absence of any proof. Merely, tripling ride on two-wheeler is not a ground to saddle liability of negligence. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Kiran Vs Sajjan Singh and Ors., reported in 2014 ACJ 2550 and submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering income despite the deceased was doing job with Cubic Construction Co., though income of only Rs.9,000/- per month is considered. The claimants have produced salary certificate and payment summary cer