New India Assurance Company ... vs Lalji Kanji Senghani
2021 Latest Caselaw 3108 Guj

        C/FA/2526/2012                                              ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/FIRST APPEAL NO.                  2526 of 2012

==========================================================
             NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                             Versus
               LALJI KANJI SENGHANI & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
 for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
RULE SERVED(64) 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. Though served, no one appears for the respondents.

2. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant­insurance company has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.03.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kachchh at Bhuj in MACP No. 61/99 whereby the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 78,400/­ to be paid jointly and severally with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation.

  3. Having       heard         the     learned        advocates         for        the






             C/FA/2526/2012                                    ORDER

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 however, made an attempt to contend that the claimant should also be held contributorily negligent to the extent of 50%. 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