Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Dahyabhai Makwana vs Arif Ibrahim Mamji on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/610/2009 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 610 of 2009
================================================================
RAMESHBHAI DAHYABHAI MAKWANA
Versus
ARIF IBRAHIM MAMJI & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR V B MALIK(5071) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant - original
claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra, thereby dismissed
the claim petition of the present appellant.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appellant are that,
appellant was traveling in the Truck bearing registration No. GJ-
27-T-6104, as cleaner, and when the Truck reached in the vicinity
of the village Bhilad, the Truck turned turtled, which amounting to
severe injuries to the appellant. However, the claimant has
preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition before The Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhara bearing number
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 668 of 4996, claiming
C/FA/610/2009 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021
compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. However, the application of the
original claimant claiming compensation has come to be dismissed
by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order, the present appeal is filed by the appellant on the ground
that the Tribunal has not considered the documentary evidence
which is produced by the present appellant vide Exhibit-38 and the
other relevant documentary evidences which are produced by the
present appellant. He has also relied upon the charge-sheet, at
Exhibit-46. In absence of any cogent, relevant documentary
evidences and without there being any contemporaneous material
before the Tribunal, the appellant failed to establish the accident in
question, and therefore, after evaluating the documentary as well
as oral evidence by the learned Tribunal has rightly come to a
conclusion that the claimant i.e. present appellant herein failed to
establish the accident in question, and therefore, the Motor
Accident Claim Petition came to be dismissed by the learned
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main) Panchmahals at Godhra.
4. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Hardik A. Dave for the
appellant, learned counsel Mr. M.A. Kharadi for defendant No. 1
and learned counsel Mr. V.B. Malik for defendant No. 2. Though
rule is served to defendant No. 3, no one has appeared.
5. I have perused the Record and proceedings as also perused
the deposition of the claimant and the relevant documents with
regard to the contention raised by the appellant.
C/FA/610/2009 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021
6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant and considering the impugned judgment and order, I am
of the opinion that, no interference is required to be called for in
the impugned judgment and order therefore, the present appeal
fails and is hereby dismissed. The present appeal is dismissed
accordingly. There shall be no order as to cost.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
T. J. Bharwad
