Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Naranbhai Samjibhai Bhandari on 30 January, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2675 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2676 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2677 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2678 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2679 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
Versus
NARANBHAI SAMJIBHAI BHANDARI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VC VAGHELA(1720) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6,7
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 30/01/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI)
1. All the captioned appeals are preferred by the appellant- National Insurance Company (Original opponent No.3) against Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined the impugned common judgment and award dated 30.03.2009 passed by the learned Presiding officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.1907, 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911 of 2000, whereby the learned Court has partly allowed the claim petitions.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. H. G. Mazmudar for respondent/s-New India Insurance Company Limited.
3. Since all captioned appeals are arising out of same facts and issues, upon the request of learned advocates for the parties, the captioned First Appeals are taken up together and decided together by this common judgment.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
4.1. On 02.10.2000, (i) Rameshbhai Naranbhai Bhanderi along with (ii) his wife Bhartiben Rameshbhai Bhanderi, (iii) his son Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined Shani Rameshbhai Bhanderi (iv) his daughter Denisha Rameshbhai Bhanderi, and (v) his sister-in-law Naynaben Parshottambhai Sangani were travelling in Maruti Car bearing registration No.GJ-01-BP-994 and going towards their hometown at Tarwala, Dist-Amreli. The said car was driven by Rameshbhai Naranbhai Bhanderi and when they were passing from the sim of village Vyamsara, located in the middle of Bavla-Bagodra road, on National Highway No.8, a truck bearing registration No.GRN-5884 was parked in the middle of the road without giving any side indicator or light in reflector and was loaded with fire crackers. Due to the reflection of headlight from the opposite side, the driver of Maruti car could not see the truck from remote, but as car came close to the truck, driver of the car saw a stationary truck parked on the middle of the road. The driver applied brakes at a distance of about 15 feet, even then the car dashed with the rear portion of truck. Resultantly, all the passengers including driver namely Rameshbhai Naranbhai Bhanderi sustained serious injuries and succumbed to injuries on Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined the spot. Separate five claim petitions were filed by the passengers of the car as well as heirs of the driver of the car for compensation as under:-
Sr.No. MACP Nos. Claimants Claimed Amounts in Rs.
1. 1907 of 2000 I. Naranbhai S.Bhanderi 40,00,000 II. Maniben N. Bhanderi III. Manubhai N.Bhanderi IV. Vinubhai N.Bhanderi V. Jagdishbhai N.Bhanderi (For deceased Rameshbhai N. Bhanderi)
2. 1908 of 2000 I. Parshottam M. Sangani 3,00,000 II. Lilaben P. Sangani III. Hiteshbhai P. Sangani (For deceased Naynaben P. Sangani)
3. 1909 of 2000 I. Naranbhai S.Bhanderi 3,00,000 II. Maniben N. Bhanderi III. Manubhai N.Bhanderi IV. Vinubhai N.Bhanderi V. Jagdishbhai N.Bhanderi (For deceased Bhartiben R.Bhanderi)
4. 1910 of 2000 I. Naranbhai S.Bhanderi 2,00,000 II. Maniben N. Bhanderi III.Manubhai N.Bhanderi Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined IV. Vinubhai N.Bhanderi V. Jagdishbhai N.Bhanderi (For Minor deceased Denisha R. Bhanderi)
5. 1911 of 2000 I. Naranbhai S.Bhanderi 2,00,000 II. Maniben N. Bhanderi III. Manubhai N.Bhanderi IV.Vinubhai N.Bhanderi V. Jagdishbhai N.Bhanderi (For Minor deceased Shani R.Bhanderi) 4.2. In the all the above claim petitions, Notices were served to opponents. Driver and truck owner i.e. Opponent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint Written Statement at Exh-11 in MACP No.1907 of 2000, at Exh-13 in MACP No.1908 of 2000, at Exh-13 in MACP No.1909 of 2000, Exh-13 in MACP No.1910 of 2000, Exh-13 in MACP No.1911 of 2000 and prayed to dismiss the claim petitions. 4.3. Opponent No.3-National Insurance Company appeared and filed Written Statement at Exh-15 in MACP No.1907 of 2000, at Exh-20 in MACP No.1908 of 2000, at Exh-21 in Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined MACP No.1909 of 2000, at Exh-22 in MACP No.1910 of 2000, at Exh-22 in MACP No.1911 of 2000 and prayed to dismiss the claim petitions.
4.4. Opponent No.4-Naranbhai Bhanderi (father of deceased Rameshbhai Bhanderi) appeared and filed Written Statement at Exh-24 in MACP No.1908 of 2000 and chose not to defend himself in other claim petitions. 4.5. Opponent No.5-New India Insurance Company appeared and filed Written Statement at Exh-23 in MACP No.1908 of 2000, at Exh-24 in MACP No.1909 of 2000, at Exh-25 in MACP No.1910 of 2000, at Exh-25 in MACP No.1911 of 2000 and prayed to dismiss the claim petitions. 4.6. Thereafter, claimant No.1 - Naranbhai Samjibhai Bhanderi (father of deceased) deposed at Exh-28 in MACP No. 1907 of 2000, the claimant No.1 - Parshottambhai Mohanbhai Sangani (father of deceased) deposed at Exh-27 in MACP No. 1908 of Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined 2000, the claimant No.1 - Naranbhai Samjibhai Bhanderi (father in law of deceased) deposed at Exh-28 in MACP No. 1909 of 2000, the claimant No.1 - Naranbhai Samjibhai Bhanderi (grandfather of deceased) deposed at Exh-28 in MACP No. 1910 of 2000, the claimant No.1 - Naranbhai Samjibhai Bhanderi (grandfather of deceased) deposed at Exh-28 in MACP No. 1911 of 2000.
4.7. After considering the evidence on record, learned Court has found the driver of truck sole negligent in all claim petitions and awarded following amount of compensation in favour of respective claimants and held opponents Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation with 9% interest and proportionate costs from date of claim petitions till realization as under:-
MACP Nos. Compensation Awarded compensation in claimed in Rs. Rs.
1907 of 2000 40,00,000 5,03,000
1908 of 2000 3,00,000 3,85,000
1909 of 2000 3,00,000 3,61,000
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
1910 of 2000 2,00,000 1,50,000
1911 of 2000 2,00,000 1,50,000
4.8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited has filed all First Appeals on the ground of negligence and quantum.
5. Learned advocate for the appellant/s-Insurance Company submitted that the challenge under the First Appeals are on the ground of negligence and quantum. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the truck bearing No.GRN-5884 negligent in causing the accident. It is further submitted that from the panchnama, it transpires that the car was in excessive speed and the brakemarks on the road indicate that the speed of the car was excessive. The car dashed from behind and therefore, not only the driver of the truck was negligent but the driver of the car was equally negligent in the occurrence of the accident. So far Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record and has awarded excessive amount of compensation to the claimants. The multiplier which has been applied by the learned Tribunal is excessive and not in consonance with the settled law. Challenge is also raised with regard to the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Except this, there are no other submissions canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellants.
6. As against this, learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the respondent/s-claimant/s supported the judgment and award and submitted that the truck driver was solely negligent as the truck was parked on the middle of the road without any indicator or reflector. The time of the accident was early morning. The driver of the Maruti Car had also made an attempt to avoid the accident which can be seen from the panchnama. The panchnama clearly indicates the brakemarks of the car at the spot of accident. When the driver of the truck has not been Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined examined to dislodge the claim of negligence, relying upon the best available evidence, learned Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the driver of the truck was solely negligent in the occurrence of accident and this finding may not be disturbed by this Court in absence of any contrary evidence.
7. Learned advocate Mr. H.G. Mazmudar for New India Insurance Company Limited submitted that the truck driver was sole negligent in happening of the accident and there are no justifiable reasons for disturbing the findings on negligence which have been arrived at by the learned Tribunal after assessing the facts.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the evidence which can be seen from the record and proceedings, learned Tribunal has found that the offending truck was parked on the middle of the road without any side light or indicator for the Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined vehicles who were coming from behind. In deciding the issue of negligence, the definition of negligence is to be considered first. Negligence consists of committing something which ought to have been done either in different manner or not done at all. When there is a duty to execute care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which could be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons. In the present case, the driver of the truck has not come forward to substantiate the omission to take care in avoiding the accident. Relying upon the panchnama, learned Tribunal has found that the driver of the car had applied brakes and the brakemarks are found on the road. We also concur with the finding which has been arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the driver of the truck was solely negligent. On the quantum aspect, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned advocate for the appellants in disturbing the finding on the amount of compensation.
Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2675/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined
9. In totality of the facts, we are of the opinion that no case is made out by the Insurance Company in taking a different view than the view taken by the learned Tribunal in partly allowing the claim petitions. We are informed that the claimants have not preferred any appeals for enhancement of compensation.
10. Resultantly, captioned First Appeals are dismissed. Record and proceedings to be sent back to the concerned Court / Tribunal.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 00:52:23 IST 2025