Gujarat High Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim, Holds Contributory Negligence Not Applicable to Third-Party Claimant. Court sets aside Tribunal's finding of sole negligence on jeep driver and remands for fresh assessment of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Gujarat High Court Bench: AHEMDABAD In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 02:50:21

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Nagjibhai Dhanabhai Rabari, the original claimant, filed a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 19.04.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh at Anjar, in MACP No.513 of 2015. The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.08.2006, when the claimant was returning from Patan to Dhabada in a jeep bearing registration No. GJ-12-X-6533, driven by opponent No. 4, Amrabhai Rabari. While overtaking a trailer, a truck bearing registration No. GJ-12-0-6418, driven by opponent No. 1, Amarji Akherajji Jadeja, came rashly and negligently at an excessive speed and dashed head-on with the jeep, causing grievous injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, held that the driver of the jeep was solely negligent and awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum, apportioning liability accordingly. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in holding the jeep driver solely negligent, arguing that the head-on collision indicated contributory negligence by the truck driver, who failed to appear or adduce evidence, warranting an adverse inference. The appellant also challenged the assessment of the deceased's income at Rs.2,500/- per month as too low. The High Court, per Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, heard the appeal and observed that in a head-on collision involving a third-party claimant, the concept of contributory negligence cannot be applied to the claimant, and the drivers of both vehicles are jointly and severally liable. The court noted that the truck driver did not step into the witness box, and an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, should have been drawn against him. The court also found the income assessment to be on the lower side. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the issues of negligence and quantum of compensation, directing the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Third-Party Claimant - In a head-on collision between a jeep and a truck, the Tribunal held the jeep driver solely negligent and apportioned compensation - The High Court held that a third-party claimant cannot be fastened with contributory negligence; the offending vehicle drivers are jointly and severally liable - Held that the Tribunal's finding of sole negligence on the jeep driver was erroneous and the matter requires fresh adjudication (Paras 1-6).

B) Motor Accident Claims - Adverse Inference - Non-examination of Driver - The truck driver did not step into the witness box nor tendered evidence - The High Court held that an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the truck driver under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Held that failure to examine the driver leads to presumption that his evidence would have been unfavorable (Para 4).

C) Motor Accident Claims - Income Assessment - Deceased's Income - The Tribunal assessed the deceased's income at Rs.2,500/- per month - The High Court found this assessment to be on the lower side and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the income aspect afresh - Held that the Tribunal must consider the prevailing minimum wages and other evidence (Para 5).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the jeep solely negligent and in apportioning compensation, and whether the income of the deceased was correctly assessed.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 19.04.2019, and remanded the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh at Anjar, for fresh adjudication on the issues of negligence and quantum of compensation. The Tribunal was directed to decide the matter afresh within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Law Points

Contributory negligence
Third-party claimant
Joint and several liability
Adverse inference
Head-on collision
Apportionment of compensation

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 23

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2090 of 2022

2026-01-06

Hasmukh D. Suthar

Nishit A Bhalodi for the Appellant, Ms. Dimple A. Thaker for Respondent No.3

Nagjibhai Dhanabhai Rabari

Amarji Akherajji Jadeja & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

First appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought enhancement of compensation and setting aside of the Tribunal's finding of sole negligence on the jeep driver.

Filing Reason

The appellant was dissatisfied with the Tribunal's judgment and award dated 19.04.2019 in MACP No.513 of 2015.

Previous Decisions

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh at Anjar, by judgment dated 19.04.2019, held the jeep driver solely negligent and awarded Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the jeep solely negligent in a head-on collision? Whether the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the truck driver for non-examination? Whether the assessment of the deceased's income at Rs.2,500/- per month was correct?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in holding the jeep driver solely negligent; the head-on collision indicates contributory negligence by the truck driver. The appellant submitted that the truck driver failed to appear or adduce evidence, so an adverse inference should be drawn against him. The appellant contended that the income of the deceased was assessed too low at Rs.2,500/- per month. The appellant argued that the claimant being a third party, the drivers are jointly and severally liable and there cannot be apportionment of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi

In a head-on collision involving a third-party claimant, the concept of contributory negligence cannot be applied to the claimant. The drivers of both vehicles are jointly and severally liable. Non-examination of the truck driver warrants an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Tribunal's finding of sole negligence on the jeep driver was erroneous, and the matter requires fresh adjudication.

Judgment Excerpts

The Tribunal ought to have considered that the accident occurred due to a head-on collision, and therefore, the driver of the truck ought to have been held negligent for the accident. The driver of the truck failed to perform his duty and neither tendered any evidence nor stepped into the witness box; hence, the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against him. The claimant being a third party, the driver of the offending vehicle is jointly and severally liable, and there cannot be any apportionment of compensation.

Procedural History

The appellant filed MACP No.513 of 2015 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh at Anjar, which was dismissed by judgment and award dated 19.04.2019. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.