High Court of Gujarat Dismisses Appeal by GSRTC in Motor Accident Claim — Upholds Award of Rs.24,93,000 for Amputation of Leg. ST Bus Driver Held Solely Negligent; No Contributory Negligence by Motorcyclist Established Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Gujarat High Court Bench: AHEMDABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 93
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a motor accident claim petition filed by Babubhai Jasabhai Maru (the claimant) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 28.10.2023. The claimant was riding his motorcycle when an ST Bus owned by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC), driven rashly and negligently, hit him, causing amputation of his right leg and multiple fractures. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), Rajkot, partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.24,93,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition. GSRTC appealed under Section 173 of the MV Act, arguing that the driver of the ST Bus and the insurance company of the motorcycle were necessary parties and that the claimant contributed to the accident. The High Court examined the evidence, including FIR and panchnama, and found that the ST Bus driver was solely negligent. It held that non-joinder of the driver is not fatal as the Corporation is vicariously liable, and the insurance company of the motorcycle is not a necessary party. The court also upheld the quantum of compensation, noting the permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The appeal was dismissed, and the award was confirmed.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Sole Negligence of ST Bus Driver - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 173 - The claimant sustained grievous injuries including amputation of right leg due to rash and negligent driving of ST Bus. The Tribunal held the ST Bus driver solely negligent based on FIR and panchnama. The High Court upheld the finding, noting that the appellant failed to prove contributory negligence by the motorcyclist. (Paras 1-3)

B) Motor Accident Claims - Non-Joinder of Parties - Necessary Parties - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 173 - The appellant argued that the driver of the ST Bus and the insurance company of the motorcycle were necessary parties. The High Court held that non-joinder of the driver is not fatal as the Corporation is vicariously liable, and the insurance company of the motorcycle is not a necessary party in a claim against the ST Bus owner. (Paras 3-4)

C) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Quantum - Amputation of Leg - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The Tribunal awarded Rs.24,93,000/- with 9% interest for amputation of right leg and fractures. The High Court found no infirmity in the quantum, considering the permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. (Paras 5-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal erred in holding the ST Bus driver solely negligent and in not impleading the driver of the ST Bus and the insurance company of the motorcycle as parties.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and award dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), Rajkot, in MACP No.1750 of 2023.

Law Points

  • Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988
  • Section 166
  • Section 173
  • contributory negligence
  • necessary parties
  • non-joinder of parties
  • compensation for amputation
  • interest rate 9% per annum
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 49

R/First Appeal No. 4270 of 2025 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2025

2026-01-06

Hasmukh D. Suthar

Mr. H.S. Munshaw (for appellant), Mr. Hemal Shah (for respondent), Ortis Law Offices (for respondent)

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

Babubhai Jasabhai Maru

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

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

Remedy Sought

Appellant (GSRTC) sought setting aside of the award of compensation of Rs.24,93,000/- with interest.

Filing Reason

Appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in holding ST Bus driver solely negligent and in not impleading necessary parties.

Previous Decisions

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), Rajkot, partly allowed MACP No.1750 of 2023 and awarded Rs.24,93,000/- with 9% interest.

Issues

Whether the learned Tribunal erred in holding the ST Bus driver solely negligent for the accident? Whether non-joinder of the ST Bus driver and the insurance company of the motorcycle is fatal to the claim?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the driver of ST Bus and insurance company of motorcycle were necessary parties and not impleaded. Appellant argued that the claimant contributed to the accident by overtaking a tractor and causing head-on collision. Respondent argued that the ST Bus driver was solely negligent and the award is just and proper.

Ratio Decidendi

In a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner of the offending vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligence of its driver. Non-joinder of the driver is not fatal. The insurance company of the other vehicle is not a necessary party. The Tribunal's finding on negligence based on FIR and panchnama is upheld unless perverse.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant – original opponent No.2 – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment and award dated 29.08.2025... The learned Tribunal has not appreciated the contents of FIR as well as panchnama and has erroneously held the driver of ST Bus to be sole negligent...

Procedural History

The claimant filed MACP No.1750 of 2023 under Section 166 of the MV Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), Rajkot. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim on 29.08.2025. The appellant (GSRTC) filed First Appeal No.4270 of 2025 under Section 173 of the MV Act before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court admitted the appeal and heard it finally with consent.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 166, 173
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Examines Whether Civil Suit for Recovery Survives Approval of Resolution Plan Under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petition raises the question of the overriding effect of the IBC on pending civil proceedings.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree for Husband in Mohomedan Law Case — Wife’s Cruelty Defence Rejected as Unsubstantiated. Wife Failed to Prove Cruelty Under Section 281(2) of Mohomedan Law to Defeat Husband’s Suit ...