The United India Insurance ... vs Haribhai Bhavanbhai Nanda
2022 Latest Caselaw 1015 Guj

         C/FA/242/2022                           ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 242 of 2022
                                 With
          CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
                                   In
                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 242 of 2022
========================================================
         THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                                Versus
                  HARIBHAI BHAVANBHAI NANDA
========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
                          Date : 01/02/2022
                            ORAL ORDER

[1.0.] This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & 02 nd Additional District Judge, Jamnagar, dated 26.10.2021 rendered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.231 of 2015, whereby the claimants have been awarded the compensation of Rs.15,47,330/- holding all the opponents jointly and severally liable to pay the same with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization of the amount with proportionate costs of the petition.

[2.0.] The brief case, as pleaded in the Claim Petition, is that, on 31.01.2015, the deceased Bhavesh Haribhai Nanda was walking on the Sargvada Highway, at that time one Bolero Car bearing Registration No.GJ-11-Z-8379, owned by opponent No.1 in the claim petition and insured by opponent No.2, drove in very

C/FA/242/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022

rash, negligent and in a manner endangering human life, dashed with the deceased from behind, as a result of which, deceased succumbed to the injuries and died. The Claim Petition came to be filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, which is not in dispute.

[3.0.] The only contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the appellant that since the owner-cum- driver of the vehicle in question has entered the witness box and stated that his vehicle is never involved in an offence, before the the Criminal Court complainant and witnesses have deposed to about an accident caused by utility car and not by Bolero Jeep Car, nor registration number is mentioned, and therefore, the owner-cum-driver came to be acquitted of the charge. Therefore, he vehemently asserted that vehicle in question is not involved in an accident, and therefore, no compensation could have been awarded by the Tribunal. He has further asserted that with regard to negligence or the involvement of the vehicle, though argued before the Tribunal, there is no reference of such deposition of owner-cum-driver in the whole judgment and award. He has further submitted that once the owner-cum-driver came to be acquitted by the competent criminal Court, the FIR and charge-sheet filed against that driver looses its evidentiary value, and therefore, the assertion made by the owner-cum- driver has to be believed. Therefore, he has requested that the present appeal may be admitted and allowed.

[4.0.] Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and perusing the judgment as also documents annexed with the appeal, one fact is certain that merely mentioning wrong make of

C/FA/242/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022

a vehicle different than that involved in the accident, that too, before a criminal Court, will not come to the rescue of either owner-cum-driver or the insurance company, as registration number of the vehicle is mentioned in the charge-sheet prosecuting the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question. Not only that, Mr. Rathin Raval, has lost sight of cross examination conducted on behalf of the claimants when owner-cum-driver entered the witness box. As admitted by the owner-cum-driver in his cross examination, he has not filed any written statement before the Tribunal. He has admitted in the cross examination that in an accident case, Police had arrested him. It is further admitted that the said vehicle bearing registration number which is involved in this case, was also seized by the Police. He has further admitted that his statement also came to be recorded by the Police. The witness had to further admit that for his false involvement into the case or his vehicle as asserted by him in the examination-in-chief, no proceedings is yet initiated against any Police authority.

[5.0.] Merely because in a criminal trial owner-cum-driver of the vehicle involved in an accident came to be acquitted, it has nothing to do with involvement of the vehicle in an accident. On the contrary, if acquittal is recorded on the ground that vehicle is not involved in an accident, it may have some bearing. On the basis of evidence lead before the Tribunal and proper appreciation of it when the factum of accident and involvement of the vehicle in question in it, is believed by the Tribunal, in absence of any compelling reasons based on evidence lead before it, I am unable to accept the contention of the appellant. I

C/FA/242/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022

am also unable to agree with the argument that when in a criminal trial accused is acquitted of the charge, FIR and charge- sheet looses its evidentiary value. Unless and until clear finding is recorded by criminal Court acquitting the accused that vehicle in question as also the driver is falsely roped into the case, and that evidence is also brought on record of this case, it is of no use. But, there is no such case of the owner-cum-driver himself, and therefore, such contention is bereft of any evidence led by the insurance company and / or by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, and therefore, such contention is required to be rejected outright.

[6.0.] The further contention that there is no reference or discussion with regard to the deposition of the owner-cum-driver in para-9.2,at page-17 of the judgment and award of the Tribunal, it has become vulnerable and appeal is required to be admitted and allowed, is also required to be rejected. Even if, there is no reference about that deposition, as coming out from the argument, once the judgment and award can be sustained on detail discussion of the deposition, as a whole, of the owner-cum- driver including cross examination, merely because judgment and award of the Tribunal is not happily worded taking note of some part of the evidence, it will not detain further this Court to entertain the appeal which sans merit.

[7.0.] Hence, this appeal is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the connected Civil Application is also disposed of.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) Lalji Desai