NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1491/2011 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1491 of 2011
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 141 of 2016
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1491 of 2011
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ANAND
Versus
KALVINDERSINGH S/O RAMINDERSINGH (DELETED) & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR PARESH M DARJI(3700) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 11/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsels Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, Mr.Paresh Darji and Mr.Rituraj Meena for the respective parties.
2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, awarded by Claim Tribunal at Kheda, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
3. The original claimant has also challenged the issue of negligence determined by the Tribunal by filing a cross objection.
4. Injured Ramadala Patel met with an accident on 10.09.1995, when his Maruti Car dashed with the opposite truck, as a result of which, the claimant being a driver of the car sustained grievous injuries which has resulted into permanent partial disablement. The claimant respondent had filed a claim petition no.314 of 1996 before the Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:30:48 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1491/2011 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023 undefined Tribunal at Kheda, against the owners and insurance companies of both the vehicles. The learned Tribunal, vide its judgment and award dated 30.12.2010, held the claimant negligent to the extent of 60% and awarded the compensation a sum of Rs.2,50,500/-.
5. In the aforesaid facts, the New India Assurance Company with whom the truck was insured has preferred present appeal, on the ground that the amount awarded is on higher side.
6. Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, appearing for and on behalf of the appellant insurance company, has submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence that the car which was driven by the claimant went into wrong side, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held 100% negligence in the said accident.
7. On the issue of quantum, Mr.Nanavati submitted that the true facts about the salary was being suppressed by the claimant and therefore, the assessment under future loss is on higher side which deserves to be modified.
8. On the other hand, Mr.Paresh Darji, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the original claimant, submitted that the claimant being injured witness of the incident has categorically stated in his deposition that there was no fault on his part and due to over confidence on the part of the driver of the truck, the alleged incident was arisen. He further submitted that the driver of the truck was neither stepped into witness box nor examined by the insurance company. Thus, reliance placed on the panchnama of place of accident for determination of Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:30:48 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1491/2011 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023 undefined negligence by the Tribunal is contrary to settled principle of law as the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the substantial evidence.
9. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the driver of the truck was neither himself stepped into witness box nor examined by the insurance company. The evidence of the claimant if taken into consideration then the Tribunal, without sufficient reasons, discarded his version on the issue of negligence alleged against the truck driver. Thus, the assessment of the negligence fixed on the claimant is somewhat is on higher side. However, facts remain that the claimant being a permanent employee, of the State Government was awarded the amount under future loss which could not have been awarded by the Tribunal.
10. In the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the assessment of the negligence does not require to reduce as the amount awarded under the future loss is on higher side and therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case and keeping in mind the principle of just compensation, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence as well as quantum do not warrant any interference.
11. Accordingly, present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
12. Cross Objection filed by the claimant is also dismissed hereby. Decree be drawn accordingly. R & P be remitted forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) Rakesh Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 18 20:30:48 IST 2023