Gujarat High Court
Rakeshkumar Ramanbhai Patel vs Bharat Tulsidas Dasani on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1821 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAKESHKUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL
Versus
BHARAT TULSIDAS DASANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No. 736 of 2011, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.74,430/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation. However, respondent No.2 - owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 - Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, were exonerated.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal are summarized as under:-
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:56:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined i. On 27.10.2011, the appellant along with his wife and nephew were travelling on motorcycle GJ-09- R-8158 from his house at Narada to Sai Baba temple to offer the prayer. The said motorcycle was being driven by the claimant/appellant herein at very moderate speed at the correct side of the road, after observing the traffic rules. When they were passing by the opposite side of the Sai Baba Temple, the respondent No.1 herein came by driving motorcycle bearing Registration no. GJ-01- LC-5689 in a rash and negligent manner at excessive speed, endangering human life and dashed with the motorcycle of the appellant. Due to the impact of the said accident, the appellant herein sustained grievous injuries. It is also pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of rider of the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689.
ii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein have chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal, however the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company filed its Written Statement at Exh.25, thereby denying the averments made in the Claim Petition in toto, and contended that the Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:56:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the claimant himself and prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iii. Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.74,430/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation. However, the respondent no.2-
owner of the offending motorcycle and respondent No.3 - Insurance Company of the offending motorcycle, were exonerated on the ground that the claimant/appellant herein could not prove the involvement of the said motorcycle in the accident.
iv. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimant/appellant herein preferred the captioned appeal thereby challenging the exoneration of respondent Nos.2 & 3.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Ms. Spruha Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Tirth Nayak, learned counsel for the Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:56:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined claimant/appellant, vehemently submitted that in the original complaint, the wrong registration number of the motorcycle which caused the accident came to be mentioned. However, in the subsequent statement of the complainant/appellant recorded by the police, the correct registration number of the motorcycle involved in the accident was revealed. She further submitted that the original claimant/appellant had mentioned the correct registration number of the motorcycle, i.e., Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689, in the claim petition. She also submitted that the claimant/appellant filed an affidavit in examination-in-chief narrating the correct registration number of the motorcycle. She further submitted that the version of the claimant/appellant herein throughout the trial before the learned Tribunal was that the motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689 was involved in the said accident. However, the learned Tribunal, considering the charge-sheet in which some interpolation in the registration number appears to have been made, exonerated respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from satisfying the award on technical grounds. She further submitted that where there is some discrepancy between the version of the claimant/appellant and the version recorded in the police papers, the version of the claimant deserves to be given more weightage. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant/appellant herein placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari & Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 6151 of 2011], reported in 2021 ACJ 2558. Relying upon the Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:56:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. He further submitted that the charge-sheet was filed against the rider of a motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-01-LH-6844, therefore, the claimant/appellant herein could not prove the involvement of the motorcycle in question; as such, contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No.3 -Insurance Company from satisfying the award. He further submitted that the present appeal is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is to be noted that, in para 9 of the Claim Petition, the claimant/appellant herein had pleaded that respondent No.1 herein came with a motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Though the notices of the Claim Petition were duly served upon the respondents, neither the rider nor the owner of the offending motorcycle appeared before the learned Tribunal to dispute the involvement of the said motorcycle. The Insurance Company also filed its Written Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:56:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Statement at Exh.25, wherein it has not denied the involvement of the motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-01- LC-5689, rather, pleaded that the claimant himself was much more negligent than the rider of motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-01-LC-5689. Hence, the Insurance Company has not specifically denied the involvement of the motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689 in the said accident. In addition to this, the claimant/appellant herein had filed the affidavit in examination-in-chief at Exh.36, wherein at para no.2, he narrated the very same registration number of the offending motorcycle. He also stepped into the witness- box for his cross-examination and was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. However, the said fact of involvement was not challenged by the Insurance Company even in the cross-examination. At this juncture, it is to be noted that when the complaint was made, the complainant had wrongly mentioned the registration number of the motorcycle involved in the accident as GJ-01-LH-6844, however, in his subsequent statement recorded by the police on 27.10.2011, he clarified that the correct registration number of the motorcycle involved in the accident was GJ-01- LC-5689. Though the correct registration number was revealed to the Investigating Officer, yet when the charge- sheet was filed, the Investigating Officer mentioned the registration number of the motorcycle as GJ-01-LH-6844. Perusal of the said charge-sheet further transpires that there is some interpolation and overwriting in mentioning the registration number of motorcycle. The charge-sheet further Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:56:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined transpires that it was filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-01-LC-5689, however, neither did he appear before the learned Tribunal nor did he challenge that he had been wrongly implicated in the said accident. The claimant/appellant herein had remained firm to his version throughout the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. It is settled preposition of law that the claimant has to prove his claim on the preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in my considered view, the claimant/ appellant had successfully proved before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle involved in the accident was the motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-01-LC-5689.
7. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chamundeshwari (supra), wherein it is held that if any evidence before the tribunal runs contrary to the contents of the FIR, then evidence recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the FIR. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in holding that it is not proved that the motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689 was involved in the accident. Thus, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of involvement of motorcycle is not sustainable and as such perverse, therefore, the same is liable to be reversed. Accordingly it is held that the motorcycle Registration bearing No. GJ-01-LC-5689 is Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:56:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined involved in the accident and caused the accident. Consequently, the exoneration of respondent No.2 - Owner of the offending vehicle & respondent No.3- Insurance Company is not sustainable and accordingly, all the respondents herein are held jointly and severally liable to satisfying the award. No other plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal stands allowed, and accordingly, all the respondents herein are held jointly and severally liable to satisfying the award.
9. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal along with interest within a period of six weeks from today. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the original claimant (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
10. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings if any, be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:56:31 IST 2025