Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Jayaben Kanjibhai Prajapati on 6 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/24/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
JAYABEN KANJIBHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 6,7
MR BY MANKAD(440) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS KRUPALI BHATT for MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s)
No. 10
REFUSED SERVED (R)(70) for the Defendant(s) No. 9.1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 5,8
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 9.2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 06/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ankit Bachani for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Krupali Bhatt for learned advocate Mr. Palak H. Thakkar for respondent No.10. Learned advocate Mr. B. Y. Mankad appears for and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, however, he remained absent when the matter was taken up for hearing. Perused the record.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 14:57:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/24/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the appellant -
insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 23.8.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Valsad in M.A.C.P. No.1242 of 2002.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under:
* On 28.4.1998, deceased Kanjibhai Bhanjibhai Prajapati was travelling in Jeep No.GJ-15-8353 with other passengers from Bombay to Valsad. When the jeep reached near village Gundlav, near GIDC, opponent No.1
- driver of truck No.HR-45-1605 came in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking a vehicle going ahead of it, failed to overtake successfully. Resultantantly, dashed with the jeep in which deceased was travelling with other passengers. Hence, deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed. * Claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition for a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- from the opponents. Opponents were served with summons. Opponent nos.1 and 2 i.e. the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 14:57:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/24/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined driver and owner of the truck did not contest the claim petition while opponent No.3 - insurance company appeared and filed Written Statement at Exh.61. While opponent nos.4 and 5 i.e. the driver and owner of the jeep did not contest the claim petition while opponent No.6 - insurance company of the Jeep appeared and filed Written Statement at Exh.56.
* After framing of issues, claimant No.4 - son of deceased submitted his deposition at Exh.64 and produced FIR, Panchnama, PM report, and other documents in support of claim petition. * After considering the evidence, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by directing opponent Nos.1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.7,70,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till realisation while claim petition against opponent Nos.4 to 6 i.e. the driver, owner and insurance company of the jeep were exonerated. * Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 14:57:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/24/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined impugned judgment and award, the appellant - insurance company has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that while considering the question of negligence, learned Tribunal has only relied upon FIR and Panchnama. It is further contended that considering the nature of accident, the driver of the truck was not solely negligent in the occurrence of accident. There is no independent evidence whereby the negligence can be attributed solely on the shoulder of driver of the truck. Submission canvassed by Learned Advocate for the appellant is that the driver of the jeep was equally rash and negligent in the occurrence of accident. No other submissions are canvassed except the above.
5. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties and perused the Record and Proceedings. It appears from the Record and Proceedings and impugned judgment that on the date of accident, deceased was travelling with other passengers in the jeep and in the early morning at about 3.45 am, when Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 14:57:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/24/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined the jeep reached near village Gundlav, near GIDC, opponent No.1 driver of the truck came in excessive speed and in an attempt to overtake a vehicle going ahead of it, dashed with the jeep due to unsuccessful attempt in overtaking. FIR was lodged against the driver of the truck by the co-passengers of the jeep. Panchnama of the place of accident which is produced at Exhibit 48 is very clear and unambiguous. It appears from the Panchnama that the accident has occurred because of the negligent and careless driving of the driver of the truck. In an attempt to overtake a vehicle going ahead of it, the truck dashed with the jeep. Resultantly, deceased succumbed. The driver of the offending truck who has witnessed the happening of the accident has chosen not to contest the claim petition and also did not enter into the witness box to nullify the allegation of negligence which is alleged by the claimant.
6. In absence of any contrary evidence either oral or documentary, learned Tribunal cannot be said to have faulted in appreciating the evidence. In absence of any contrary material, I do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of negligence. As the challenge is only limited Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 14:57:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/24/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined to the question of negligence, I am not dwelling into other aspects of the compensation.
7. In view of above, the present First Appeal requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
8. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court / Tribunal, forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 14:57:48 IST 2025