National Insurance Co Ltd vs Rajeshbhai Kanubhai Padhiyar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3105 Guj

        C/FA/3778/2012                                               ORDER



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/FIRST APPEAL NO.                  3778 of 2012

==========================================================
                   NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                             Versus
           RAJESHBHAI KANUBHAI PADHIYAR & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR PARESH M DARJI(3700) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

                              Date : 23/02/2021

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Paresh Darji, learned advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for respondent no.4. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents.

2. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant­insurance company has challenged the judgment and award dated 06.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No. 776/05 whereby the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 78,600/­ to be paid jointly and severally with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation.

             C/FA/3778/2012                                         ORDER




   3. Having          heard      the     learned       advocates        for        the

parties and considering the contentions raised in the claim petition, on the grounds of smallness of amount, no interference is called for.

4. Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the luxury bus insured with the appellant 100% negligent in causing the accident. However, in facts of this case, considering the amount involved, no interference is called for.

5. The appeal is not entertained and dismissed on the short ground of smallness of amount and the same shall not be treated as precedent in any other case.

(R.M.CHHAYA, J) BIJOY B. PILLAI