Gujarat High Court
Mangalbhai Chaganbhai Parmar vs Ranjitsinh Ratansinh Zala on 26 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2007 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 914 of 2007
==========================================================
MANGALBHAI CHAGANBHAI PARMAR
Versus
RANJITSINH RATANSINH ZALA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JV JAPEE(358) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 26/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal arises from the impugned
judgment and award dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned
Motot Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at
Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.451 of 1990
dismissing the claim of the appellant - claimant.
2. I have considered the averments made by the
learned advocate for the appellant - claimant. I have perused
the documents available on record. I have also considered the
impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Considering
the fact that the appellant has not proved anything by
producing necessary documentary evidence like R.C. Book or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2007 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
the papers of charge-sheet, which clearly established that
present respondent No.2 - Sirajbhai is the owner of the
truck, which was allegedly involved in the accident. The
Tribunal has given the cogent reasons and discussed in detail
in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the impugned award and has come
to the definite conclusion that from the evidence produced on
record, the claimants have failed to establish the ownership
of offending vehicle and the name of the owner of the
offending vehicle. Thereafter, the insurance company cannot
accordingly be held liable.
3. On perusal of the record available with this Court
and also going though the impugned award, it cannot be said
that the Tribunal has committed any error in absence of any
documentary evidence and established the relationship of
respondent No.2 herein. Though the Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial law, but that does not mean that the claimant
does not require to satisfy the basic necessity to produce the
necessary piece of evidence which indicates the ownership of
the vehicle in question and also in turn the vehicle is
insured with the insurance company. In absence of such
relevant and material document/s, the learned Tribunal has
taken correct view. There is no illegality and infirmity is
found in the impugned award.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/914/2007 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
4. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is
required to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
5. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to
the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
