Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Company vs Rajvantsinh Fulabhai Solanki on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/3740/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3740 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 890 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3743 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
======================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
=======================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
RAJVANTSINH FULABHAI SOLANKI & 2 other(s)
=======================================
Appearance:
MR RUSHANG MEHTA FOR MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MURALIN DEVNANI(1863) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Page 1 of 5
Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 10:01:52 IST 2022
C/FA/3740/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2022
Date : 18/01/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The First Appeals No.3740 of 2011 and 3743 of 2011 are
filed by the appellant - National Insurance Company against the
judgment and award dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.1821 of
2008 and First Appeal No.890 of 2012 is filed by the appellant -
National Insurance Company against the judgment and award
dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux.), Nadiad in M.A.C.P. No.12 of 2009.
2. Heard Mr.Rushang Mehta, learned counsel appearing for
Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant -
Insurance Company, Mr.Shushil Shukla, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr.Murlin Devnani, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.3.
3. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance
Company has contended that the Tribunal has not considered
the facts and submissions of the appellant. He has submitted
that the Tribunal has also not appreciated the contents of the FIR
and panchnama and other papers wherein it is mentioned that
C/FA/3740/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2022
four persons were riding on the motorcycle while committing
breach of condition of the policy. While referring to the terms
and conditions of the policy and rules of the RTO, he has
submitted that only two persons including the driver are
permitted to ride on motorcycle, whereas, in the present case,
four persons were riding on the motorcycle. He has also
submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the
provision of Section 128 and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
4. Mr.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1
and Mr.Devnani, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3
have supported the impugned judgment and award and have
submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in
passing the impugned award.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the materials placed on record. I
have also perused the record and proceedings of the case,
contents of the FIR and panchnama at Exhibit 27 of the scene of
occurrence. From the panchnama, it clearly reveals that there is
negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor as the Tractor
was attached with the agriculture equipment (daati) and because
C/FA/3740/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2022
of that equipment, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor
could not control over the vehicle, due to which, the motorcycle
was dashed with equipment and, therefore, the accident took
place. It also reveals from the FIR registered against the driver of
the motorcycle that the driver of the motorcycle was died due to
the injury caused to him. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC
1211, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur alias
Satwinder Kaur and others, AIR 2020 SC 620, it appears
that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and, therefore,
no interference is required to be called for. I have considered the
fact that two appears are filed against the personal injury and
one is filed against fatal accident since the driver of the
motorcycle was died. In fact, the Tribunal has not awarded
proper and just compensation, but in absence of cross appeal
C/FA/3740/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/01/2022
and/or objection, this Court is not considered such aspects. First
Appeal No.890 of 2012 is filed against the award passed in
M.A.C.P. No.12 of 2009 filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act
under the structural formula and the Tribunal has awarded the
compensation. It is relevant to note herein that the motorcycle
and the Tractor both vehicles are insured with the present
Insurance Company and, therefore, no interference is required to
be called for and the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
6. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed. The
amount which is lying in the Fixed Deposit Receipt may be
disbursed in favour of all the claimants respectively, after due
verification. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
