Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Kishorbhai Jaysukhbhai Geriya

Gujarat High Court

Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Kishorbhai Jaysukhbhai Geriya on 9 July, 2025

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/262/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025

                                                                                                            undefined




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 262 of 2022


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-

                       ======================================

                                 Approved for Reporting      No          Yes
                                                             No
                       ======================================
                            ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                                           Versus
                            KISHORBHAI JAYSUKHBHAI GERIYA & ORS.
                       ======================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4,5
                       RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
                       RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ======================================

                       CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                                                      Date : 09/07/2025

                                                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company.

2. Mr. Makbul I. Mansuri, learned advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 5 - original claimants. Despite service of rule qua the respondent nos.1 and 2, no appearance has been entered. Looking at the grounds raised in the appeal, the present appeal was admitted Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:58:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/262/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 4 th July, 2022 and the impugned judgment and award was stayed on condition of deposit of entire awarded amount. The appropriate directions with regard to the disbursement were issued in terms of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company at the outset has submitted that the only issue, which has been raised for consideration of this Court in the present appeal is the negligency of the driver of the tractor. The attention of this Court was invited to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while examining the issue of negligence. Learned advocate had pointed-out the manner in which the accident had taken place. According to the learned advocate for the appellant, the driver of the tractor had not taken adequate care while driving the vehicle and had not followed the traffic rules. This has resulted into the accident. It was also submitted that though the Tribunal has recorded that the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the driver of the Accent car after detailed investigation, however, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the investigation case papers in right perspective. It was therefore submitted that the issue of negligence requires to be reexamined in light of the evidence produced on record.

4. Learned advocate for the respondents - original claimants has submitted that the Tribunal after examining the FIR Exh.35, Panchnama of scene of offence Exh.36, counter charge-sheet at Exh.37 has thereafter answered the issue of negligence against the driver of the opponent no.1 - Accent Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:58:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/262/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined car. He has therefore submitted that no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having examined their submissions in light of the evidence produced on record, on appreciation of the FIR at Exh.35, panchnama of scene of offence at Exh.36 and the counter charge-sheet produced at Exh.37, it transpires that the collision between two vehicles had taken place in a manner whereby the rear portion of the tractor was hit by the Accent car. In the complaint, it is stated that the driver of the car was driving the vehicle in speed, rash and negligent manner, which had resulted into collision at the rear portion of the tractor. The FIR has been lodged by witness Lakhabhai Jodhabhai, who is an injured eye witness to the accident. Copy of the panchnama produced on record at Exh.37 corroborates the aforesaid fact, more particularly noticing the damage caused to the tractor and the body of the Accent car. The charge-sheet counter produced on record at Exh.36 indicates that at the end of investigation, the police has opined that the driver of the car was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner for which offence punishable under Section 279 and 304 Part-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed.

6. Having appreciated the aforesaid documents in light of the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company and the decision of the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 21:58:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/262/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nishan Singh & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 (6) SCC 765, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court on appreciation of the facts of the case, noticing the pleadings and proof wherein it has transpired that the collision of car had taken place into rear end of the tractor resulting into the death of one of the passenger in the car. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the car did not maintain sufficient distance from the tractor, which has resulted into the occurrence of accident, more particularly holding that it amounts to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car. Having noticed the aforesaid decision, in light of the facts of the present case on hand, admittedly the collision between two vehicles had taken place at the rear end of vehicle going ahead of the offending vehicle.

7. Noticing the evidence brought on record, it can be concluded that the cause of the collision was due to not maintaining sufficient distance from the vehicle going ahead. In the opinion of this Court, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal holding the driver of the Accent car solely negligent for the occurrence of the accident. Hence, the present appeal is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. R. & P. be send back forthwith.

8. Pursuant to the order dated 4 th July, 2022 passed by this Court directing the disbursement of 30% amount of compensation and investment of 70% of the deposited of awarded amount, in view of the dismissal of the present appeal, the stay granted by this Court stands vacated.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/262/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined The Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed with the disbursement of the entire awarded amount including the amount invested in the Fixed Deposit in favour of the claimant subject to due verification. The appropriate exercise may be undertaken by the Tribunal preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Sd/-

(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...