Gujarat High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Company vs Mukeshbhai Hirabhai Patel on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2137/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2137 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2137 of 2025
=============================================
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
MUKESHBHAI HIRABHAI PATEL & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company. Looking to the limited issue raised in the appeal, the matter is taken up for hearing in absence of the respondents.
2. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the original opponent no.3- appellant - Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Bharuch in MACP No.18 of 20022. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition of the original claimants - respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein holding the original opponents jointly and severely liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,76,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% pa from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2137/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined
3. At the outset, learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company has drawn my attention to the issue of negligence as decided by the Tribunal. According to learned advocate, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the driver of the truck was solely negligent towards occurrence of the accident as there was no fitment of reflector, radium strip or any light on the backside of the truck. He has invited my attention to the finding and reason assigned by the Tribunal and has referred to the panchnama produced on record at Exh.30. Learned advocate has placed on record the relevant document by way of paper book, which is permitted to be taken on record. While referring to the panchnama at Exh.30, learned advocate has pointed out that the driver of the truck had placed the indicators like stone and extracts of trees thereby indicating that truck was lying stagnant on the road. He has therefore, submitted that sufficient care was taken by the driver of the truck and driver of the motorcycle was in fact driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He has therefore, submitted that the deceased motorcyclist could have avoided accident but because of his rash and negligence driving, had attributed to the accident. He has therefore, submitted that alternatively Tribunal ought to have considered contributory negligency of the deceased motorcyclist. Learned advocate has mainly relied upon the grounds raised in the appeal and has urged this Court to admit the appeal and to stay the impugned judgment and award. No other grounds have been raised by the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2137/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined
4. Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi has submitted that he has received oral instructions to appear in the matter on behalf of the original claimants. Considering the aforesaid submission, learned advocate is permitted to submit his Vakalatnama with the Registry within a period of one week from today.
5. With the assistance of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company and the grounds raised in the appeal memo, the only issue which has been posed for consideration is on the aspect of negligency. I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company in light of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal. Upon appreciation of the panchnama produced on record at Exh.30 the driver of the truck had failed to adhere to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Regulations framed thereunder. Though, the contention has been raised by the learned advocate for the appellant that sufficient obstructions in the form of rubbles of stone and plant litters were placed on road and therefore, accident could have been avoided, if the deceased was in control of vehicle, in my view does not discharge the driver of the vehicle. Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 requires the front and rear parking lights to be illuminated when a vehicle is stationary on a public road between sunset and sunrise, or during any other time when there is Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2137/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined insufficient light. Even Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits person in charge of vehicle to abandoned it in a position which is likely to cause danger. Noticing the fact that accident had taken place at around 11.15 hours in the night, the sufficient care was not taken by the driver of the truck by illuminating parking lights. In fact, on bare perusal of the panchnama of the scene of the accident has produced on record at Exh.30, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has not committed any error recording finding that it was no signal light found as well as any radium stick was noticed. It has also transpires that truck driver at left stationary truck on the middle of the road besides divider of the road. Hence, the driver of the truck has committed violation of the provision of the Act, more particularly, Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as relied upon.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal and appeal is summarily dismissed at the admission stage. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award with interest and proportionate costs preferably within a period of six weeks from today. The Tribunal shall adhere to its directions as regards release and disbursement of the award amount is concerned. With this observations, present appeal stands dismissed.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:49:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2137/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined
6. In view of the dismissal of the First Appeal, Civil Application also stands dismissed.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:49:31 IST 2025