New India Assurance Company ... vs Lalabhai Kalubha Vankar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3106 Guj

          C/FA/3664/2010                                                ORDER



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/FIRST APPEAL NO.                  3664 of 2010

==========================================================
              NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIIMITED
                              Versus
               LALABHAI KALUBHA VANKAR & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
 for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

                              Date : 23/02/2021

                                   ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the appellant. The record shows that the respondents­claimants have not been served.

2. The appeal came to be admitted vide order dated 24.11.2010 and in facts of this case, Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing for claimants is requested to appear on behalf of the claimants.

3. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant­insurance company ha challenged the judgment and award dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Vadodar in MACP No. 105/03 whereby the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 70,160/­ with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the claim

C/FA/3664/2010 ORDER

petition till its realisation.

4. 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.

5. Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant made an attempt to contend that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effective license on the date of the accident. However, in facts of this case, considering the amount involved, no interference is called for.

6. 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