Gujarat High Court
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Zubedaben Wd/O. Mahmadbhai Dawoodbhai ... on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 04/03/2025
Pronounced On : 23/06/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1487 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
ZUBEDABEN WD/O. MAHMADBHAI DAWOODBHAI DESAI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 11
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 10
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. A. V. Prajapati for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and learned advocate Mr. Palak H. Thakkar for respondent No.11. The Board indicates that notice of Rule could not be served upon respondent No.10. Perused the record.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by appellant - Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined ONGC challenging the judgment and award dated 16.6.2007 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bharuch in M.A.C.P. No.369 of 1997.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under:
* On 21.12.1994, deceased Mohammadbhai Daoodbhai Desai, had hired two tractors for the purpose of ploughing field bearing Survey No.206/1 situated at Moje-Umarwada. Out of two tractors, one tractor bearing registration No.GJ-3-C-9040 was used for ploughing. The Process of ploughing field commenced from
4.00 pm and at around 10.00 pm, during the course of the said activity, due to spark emanating from silencer of the tractor caught fire and deceased sustained severe burn injuries as he was near the tractor. Deceased was immediately taken to Ankleshwar Hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted to civil hospital, Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined Bharuch where, during treatment, on 24.12.1994, he succumbed.
* Legal heirs of deceased filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), at Bharuch. Notices were served to opponents.
* Opponent No.1 driver of tractor was deleted vide Exh-30. Opponent Nos.2 owner, opponent No.3 - Insurance Company of tractor and opponent No.4 - ONGC appeared and filed Written Statements vide Exhs-31, 19 & 16 respectively.
* Claimant No.1, widow of deceased filed her examination in chief vide Exh-63 and produced documentary evidences such as complaint, Panchnama of place of accident, Inquest Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined Panchnama, PM report and Extract of Village Form No.7/12 and 8-A in support of claim petition.
* After considering the material placed on record, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. Opponent Nos.2 and 3 being owner and Insurance company of tractor respectively were exonerated while opponent No.4 was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,67,600/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% pa from the date of petition till realization. * Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant- Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. has preferred present First Appeal on the ground of negligence attributed on ONGC.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the contentions raised in the Written Statement. It is the case pleaded by appellant that complaint was lodged by Officer of appellant alleging that deceased was guilty of theft of oil condensioner by breaking the pipeline of ONGC which was laid down in the farm and therefore deceased is not entitled for compensation. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have held driver of tractor negligent and ought to have exonerated appellant from the liability. It is the case of claimants that there was a leakage in the pipeline and due to spark in the silencer of tractor, fire broke out. Considering the facts pleaded by claimants, spark in the silencer is the route cause of accident and, therefore, appellant has wrongly been mulcted with liability to indemnify the insured by paying compensation to claimants.
5. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that Civil Suit was filed by claimants Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined suppressing the fact that claim petition is also filed for compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles, Act. It is further contended that driver of the tractor was negligent in the happening of the accident. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on a higher side and has assessed income of deceased on excessive side. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/4th. Learned advocate for the appellant would further submit that legal heirs of deceased are not entitled to any amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant.
6. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent -
Insurance Company has supported the judgment and award and submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence on record and awarded just Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined and reasonable compensation by holding appellant negligent. The award passed by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also contended that the fire broke out due to leakage in the pipeline of ONGC and, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly held ONGC negligent in the happening of the accident.
7. Learned advocate for respondent - claimant has supported the judgment and award and further submitted that the tractor was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. In the unfortunate accident, deceased has lost his life as there was a leakage in the pipeline laid down by ONGC and due to spark in the silencer of tractor, fire broke out. As deceased was near the tractor, was seriously injured and lost his life. At first instance, ONGC is negligent in the cause of accident. However, as an alternate submission, learned advocate for the claimant submitted that the cause of fire is the spark in silencer of tractor and, Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined therefore, the leakage in pipeline and the spark are the cause of accident. It is therefore submitted that even the driver and owner of tractor are equally negligent in the cause of accident. Since the tractor is insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurance company is legally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The claimants are claiming compensation from all opponents.
8. I have considered submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the Record and Proceedings. It appears from the memo of appeal that the appellant - ONGC has restricted the claim in appeal to the extent of Rs.2,67,600/-. In the written statements filed by ONGC and the insurance company, facts are stated in common. Both ONGC as well as insurance company have contended that on the date of accident, persons had gone to the land for committing theft of oil condensioner. A specific allegation is made by the insurance company in its Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined written statement that the deceased had damaged the pipeline and due to the damage in the pipeline, the fire broke out. It is specifically contended that there was no negligent act on the part of ONGC and, there was no leakage in the pipeline. Both the opponents have contended that deceased was a joint tort feasor. It also appears that FIR Exh.88 was lodged on next day of the incident by Deputy Superintendent Engineer of ONGC named Maheshkumar Shrivastav. The said complainant has also been examined by appellant at Exh.87 and in his oral deposition, it is stated that after the fire was extinguished, it was found that the pipeline was damaged and the said damage had occurred for the purpose of theft of oil. In the cross examination, witness has replied that the cause of fire could be because of the spark. No substantial cross has been done on behalf of claimant on the point of leakage in pipeline prior to fire took place. It is for the claimant to establish at first instance that there was a leakage in the pipeline and Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined because of the spark in the silencer of tractor, fire broke out. If the theory of claimant is examined, undisputed fact coming out from the record is that the cause of fire is leakage in the pipeline and spark in the silencer of the tractor. The fire could not have been broken out in absence of leakage in pipeline and sparks in the silencer. Both the causes are responsible for the fire. However, there is no evidence on record that initially there was a leakage in the pipeline prior to the spark happened in the silencer of tractor. Therefore, ONGC only cannot be saddled with the liability of paying compensation to the claimants. It is noteworthy to mention at this stage that in the written statement filed by the insurance company, a specific statement is made that persons had gone to the land for committing a theft of oil and, there was no leakage in the pipeline and, hence, there is no negligent act on the part of ONGC. A similar contention is raised by ONGC in its written statement. So the appellant as well as the insurance company are on the same line of Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined defense that ONGC is not negligent. However, unfortunately, the fire broke out which could not have been broken out unless there is a leakage in the pipeline. Similarly fire could not have been broken out inspite leakage in pipeline unless the oil has contacted with a spark.
9. Resultantly, the finding of ONGC - appellant being sole negligent in the cause of accident is in absence of any cogent and convincing direct evidence and, therefore, the finding on negligence is required to be modified. I am of view that the appellant as well as the driver of the tractor, who has been deleted from the proceedings vide Exh.30, are equally negligent in the cause of accident. I am in agreement with the submission of learned advocate for the claimant that all original opponents are jointly and severally liable for compensation to be paid to the claimants. Therefore, the negligence is apportioned in the ratio of 50%:50% of the appellant and driver, owner and Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined insurance company of the tractor. The amount of compensation awarded by learned tribunal is not under challenge by either sides and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the finding of quantum.
10. In the wake of above discussion, the claimants are entitled to recover compensation awarded by learned Tribunal jointly and severally from all original opponents in the proportion of 50%:50% each. Therefore, the first appeal is accordingly disposed of. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent.
11. Record & Proceedings, if any, to be sent back to the concerned Court immediately. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:45:52 IST 2025