IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3371 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

NAVINBHAI TRIKMABHAI KAG(PATEL)

Versus BHANVARSING GANESHAJI RAO(BAROT) & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 05/03/2026

JUDGMENT

ADMIT. Learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar waives service of notice of Admission for and on behalf of the respondent No.2. With the consent of learned advocate appearing for the respective parties, present appeal is taken up for final hearing.

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is filed by the appellant – original claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 31.12.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at Deesa (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2667/2009 (Old No.527/2003), whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,51,898/- to the appellant – original claimant after deducting 20% towards negligence of the claimant from total amount of Rs.5,64,872/-.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal are as follows: [2.1] On 03.04.1999, the appellant – claimant was going from village Kunvarla to village Dhanera by driving his owned Vehicle Scooter bearing No.GJ-8-E-5382 with moderate speed and on it's correct side by following the traffic rules and when the said Scooter was passing on the edge of bridge of river which is situated on the road leading from village Thavar to village Dhanera, Jeep bearing No.GJ-8-D-7141 came from the opposite side in full speed in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and as a result of that, the driver of the Jeep lost control over steering of the Jeep and coming on wrong side dashed with the scooter of the appellant and thus, the accident occurred due to which the appellant sustained serious bodily injuries and therefore, the appellant – original claimant initially filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act which was subsequently converted into claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the learned Tribunal held the driver of Jeep to be 80% negligent and the appellant – original claimant – scooterist to be 20% contributory negligent for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.4,51,898/- to the appellant – original claimant after deducting 20% towards his own negligence, from total amount of Rs.5,64,872/-. Hence, present appeal is filed by the appellant – original claimant challenging the contributory negligence of 20% held on the part of the claimant as well as for enhancement of compensation.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Kaash Thakkar appearing for the appellant – original claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering 20% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant without considering the panchnama in its true perspective. He has further submitted that perusing the record, it appears that offending vehicle Jeep was solely negligent in causing the accident and therefore, has requested to hold the jeep driver to be solely negligent for the accident considering the doctrine of ‘contributory negligence’ which has replaced the old English doctrine of ‘last opportunity’. He has further argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that merely driving a vehicle or being behind the steering wheel is