Gujarat High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General ... vs Ramanbhai @ Budhabhai Chimanbhai ... on 25 February, 2021
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/FA/2670/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2670 of 2020
==========================================================
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
RAMANBHAI @ BUDHABHAI CHIMANBHAI SHARMA VALAND
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 25/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This First Appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act challenging the
judgment and award dated 07.01.2020 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), 2nd Additional District Court,
Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.91 of 2017.
2. On 09.04.2016, the claimant was riding motorcycle bearing
registration No.G.J. 7 BF 484. It is the further case of the claimant
that he was riding his motorcycle in moderate speed and correct
side of the road and when he reached near the place of accident, at
that point of time, opponent no.2 came driven by Rickshaw in
excessive speed in rash and negligent matter and dashed with the
above referred motorcycle from behind as a result accident
occurred and in the said accident, claimant sustained serious
injuries including fracture.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rathin Raval for the appellant and
learned advocate Mr.Rakesh Sharma for the opponents.
C/FA/2670/2020 ORDER
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the appellant
has absolutely no liability to pay compensation as the claimant
deliberately produced a fake insurance policy to cover date of the
accident. It is further stated that the claimant produced a fake
insurance policy with the claim petition. Insurance policy produced
by the claimant was a cover note. He further stated that the
appellant wanted to produce various documents/evidence to prove
the defence to fake insurance policy. The legal officer of the
insurance company was present before the Tribunal on 25.11.2019
and 16.12.2019 for deposition but Tribunal was not available. On
the next date of hearing, the Tribunal has closed the right of the
appellant without giving chance to produce the deposition of the
legal officer. Mr.Raval stated that the Tribunal then ideally should
have posted the matter for final hearing or arguments, not closing
the rights of the appellant. Learned advocate for the appellant has
submitted that pursis at Exh.60 was filed stating that legal officer of
the insurance company was present, however, since, the Court was
not available, evidence could not be recorded. Still however, stage
of recording the evidence came to be closed by the Tribunal.
5. It is further stated by the learned advocate for the applicant that
Insurance Company has gave an application for requesting for copy
of the rojkam from the concerned tribunal. But, the same request
was rejected. This pursis was given on 03.09.2020 and the same
was rejected on the same date.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Rakesh Sharma appears on behalf of the
respondents no.2 and 3 has submitted that the impugned judgment
and award of the Tribunal does not require any interference and the
same is just and proper.
C/FA/2670/2020 ORDER
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. I am
of the opinion that legal officer of the appellant - Insurance
Company was present before the Tribunal for recording the
evidence but the Tribunal was not available then proper procedure
was required to be followed and liberty for deposition was required
to be given to the Insurance Company to prove their case.
However, Tribunal closed the stage of arguments. Further on the
request of receipt of rojkam was rejected by the Tribunal.
Considering the above discussion, it appears that Tribunal has
passed the order without affording opportunity of recording of
evidence of legal officer and without following the due process of
law.
8. The First Appeal is partly allowed. In view of the above, without
going into the merits of the matter, the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), 2 nd
Additional District Court, Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.91 of
2017 dated 07.01.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Tribunal.
9. Tribunal is directed that the matter be heard after providing the
proper opportunity to all the contesting parties in accordance with
law and without being influenced by observations of this Court.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
VARSHA DESAI
