Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Narendrasing Kesasing Ravat on 31 January, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1532 of 2015
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 15 of 2016
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1532 of 2015
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1533 of 2015
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 16 of 2016
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1533 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
NARENDRASING KESASING RAVAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 31/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI) Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:04:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined
1. Present appeals and Cross-objections are filed by the respective appellants challenging the common judgment and award dated 27.02.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra. The First Appeal No.1532 of 2015 together with Cross-Objection No.15 of 2016 is emanating from MAC Petition No.932 of 2010. The First Appeal No.1533 of 2015 together with Cross-Objection No.16 of 2016 is emanating from MAC Petition No.933 of 2010.
2. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for respondent Nos.6.1 to 6.4.
3. Since both the appeals are emanating from the same facts and submissions, therefore, both the appeals are taken up for final disposal.
4. The brief facts in the present First Appeals are as under:- Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:04:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined 4.1. On 26.10.2010 at approximately 3.30 a.m. deceased Manojbhai Kalidas Panchal along with his wife Jyotiben alias Joyotikaben Manojbhai Panchal, daughter Hetalben and son Sagar along with other relatives were travelling in Qualis Car No.GJ-05-AR-4389. They were travelling from Shirdi to Godhara. When the car reached near Anandpura Village on Vadodara-Halol Highway, a truck bearing Registration No.GJ-
12-Y-9515 was going ahead of the Qualis Car in a very high speed. The driver of the Qualis Car i.e. original opponent No.4 was also driving the car at an excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner. The driver of the truck suddenly applied breaks and stopped the truck in the middle of the road. As the driver of the Qualis Car lost control, dashed with the rear side of the truck. Resultantly, Manojbhai Kalidas Panchal, his wife, daughter and son suffered serious injuries and due to the accidental injuries, Manojbhai and his wife Joyotiben alias Jyotikaben died. Daughter Hetal and son Sagar sustained injuries. The Qualis Car belonged to the ownership of original Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:04:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined opponent No.5. Opponent No.4 was driving the Qualis Car at the relevant point of time. Original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are the driver and owner respectively of the truck. Opponent No.3 is the Insurance Company of the offending truck and opponent No.6 is the Insurance Company of the Qualis Car. The minor Hetalben has filed MACP No.932 of 2010 for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, District Panchmahals at Godhra and learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.65,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. The minor Sagar has filed MACP No.933 of 2010 for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, District Panchmahals at Godhra and learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,57,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. The respective insurance companies i.e. opponent No.3 and 6 filed their respective written statements at Exhibit-27 and Exhibit-49 respectively and contested the claim petition. Opponent Nos.1, 2 Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:04:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined did not file written statement. Opponent Nos.4 and 5 filed joint written statement at Exhibit-31. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidences, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against opponent Nos.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the driver, owner and insurance company of the truck and dismissed the petition against opponent Nos.4, 5 and 6 i.e. the driver, owner and insurance company of Qualis Car. The learned Tribunal passed an award directing opponent Nos.1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.65,500/- and Rs.1,57,500/- in MACP No.932 of 2010 and 933 of 2010 respectively with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization with proportionate costs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants in First Appeal No.1532 of 2015 and First Appeal No.1533 of 2015, are before this Court challenging the aforesaid impugned judgment and award.
5. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:04:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence holding the truck solely negligent in causing the accident is against the oral as well as the documentary evidence. The oral deposition of the driver of the truck at Exhibit-166 clearly mentions that the truck was stationary at the edge of road due to breakdown. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded to the claimant at Rs.65,500/- considering the alleged disability to the minor claimant-Hetalben Manojkumar is on a higher side and without any evidence.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the claimant has supported the award and submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the appeal of the insurance company may be dismissed.
7. We have heard the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Though, various grounds have been raised in the memo Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:04:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined of appeals, the fact remains that the total amount involved in the captioned First Appeals Nos.1532 of 2015 and 1533 of 2015 are only Rs.65,500/- and Rs.1,57,000/- respectively.
8. Over and above the smallness of the amount, the minor Sagar has sustained disability of 15% body as a whole.
9. Considering the smallness of amount, we have found no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the captioned First Appeals are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. Accordingly, only on the ground of smallness of amount, it is hereby clarified that this order may not be considered as precedent in other claim petition arising out of the same accident. The Cross-Objections filed by the original opponent No.5-United India Insurance Company Limited is mainly on the ground that the Qualis Car was hired by the deceased and the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation. It is also Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:04:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined contended that by learned advocate for the Insurance Company, United India Insurance Company Limited, that the FIR explicitly states that the car was hired for a trip to Shirdi. The insured car was used for hire and reward, the policy does not cover such risk. On the quantum aspect, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation by applying the wrong multiplier and by miscalculating the compensation for loss of estate.
11. In our opinion, the grounds for challenge by way of cross- objections are not entertainable for the aforesaid discussion. The present appellant/s could not place on record any cogent and convincing material to substantiate their contention regarding use of the Qualis Car for hire and reward purpose. The quantum of compensation which has been decided by this Court in the aforesaid paragraphs eventually disentitles the appellant/s in succeeding in the cross-objections. Resultantly, captioned Cross-Objections are dismissed.
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:04:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined
12. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 22:04:18 IST 2025