Sukhabhai Bhavanbhai Patel vs Valjibhai Dahyabhai Sitapara
2021 Latest Caselaw 977 Guj

          C/FA/1617/2009                                       JUDGMENT



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                           R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1617 of 2009

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA                            sd/­
=============================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see             NO
      the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                             NO

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the            NO
      judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as         NO
      to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
      order made thereunder ?

=============================================
                       SUKHABHAI BHAVANBHAI PATEL
                                  Versus
                 VALJIBHAI DAHYABHAI SITAPARA & 2 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SANDEEP N BHATT(190) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
=============================================
    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
                       Date : 21/01/2021
                        ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Manish Patel, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Sandeep Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3.

By way of present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant owner of the vehicle involved has challenged the judgment and award dated 12.04.2007 passed by

C/FA/1617/2009 JUDGMENT

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Morbi in Claim Petition No.286 of 1997. The Tribunal has not believed the oral version of the claimant and there is difference in claim made in the claim petition and in the oral deposition. Having observed that, the learned Tribunal however has not dealt with and has not examined the aspect whether such assertion is rebutted or not. In such circumstances, as agreed by the learned advocates for the respective parties, without assigning any reasons, the impugned judgment and award is hereby quashed and set aside and the proceedings of Claim Petition being MACP No.286 of 1997 are remitted back to the Tribunal at Morbi. The amount if any, deposited shall remain with the Nazir of the Tribunal. As the original Claim Petition is of 1997, the Tribunal shall rehear the parties from the stage of evidence and disposed of the Claim Petition latest by 30.06.2021. Time limit prescribed is subject to cooperation of all the parties to the claim petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to send the original record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.

sd/­ (R.M.CHHAYA, J) KAUSHIK J. RATHOD