Gujarat High Court
Laxmiben Kalyansinh Gabesinh Chauhan vs Govindbhai Jasvantbhai Parmar on 15 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3275/2024 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3275 of 2024
==========================================================
LAXMIBEN KALYANSINH GABESINH CHAUHAN & ORS.
Versus
GOVINDBHAI JASVANTBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
HARSH A VYAS(9330) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 15/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal is filed by the
appellants - original claimants against the judgment and
award dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), and 2 nd Additional District
Judge, Panchmahals at Halol in MACP No.249 of 2019,
wherein the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim
petition.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kaash Thakkar for
appellants - original claimants and learned advocate Mr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3275/2024 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
Harsh Vyas for respondent No.3. Though served, none
appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1 On 15.09.2019, at about 19-15 hours, deceased
Kalyansinh Gabesinh Chauhan was returning from Maswad
to home on motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-06-FM-
5347, at that time, on Hirapur-Sathrota road, Opponent
No.1 came on motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-17BL-
2074, in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the
deceased. Due to which, deceased sustained bodily injuries
on head and other parts of body and succumbed because
of vehicular accident. FIR was lodged before the Halol
Police Station.
3.2 The legal heirs of deceased filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. Notices were issued and
served with the opponents. Opponent No.1 and 2 appeared
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3275/2024 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
but did not file any Written Statement. Opponent No.3
appeared and filed Written Statement at Ex.15. Claimant
No.1 examined herself at Ex.18 and produced documentary
evidence such as copy of complaint, Panchnama of scene
of accident, Inquest Panchnama, P.M.Note and relevant
documents in support of claim petition. After considering
the evidence both oral and documentary, learned Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition holding deceased sole
negligent for the occurrence of accident.
3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, present appellants -
original claimants are before this Court.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted
that, as per the Panchnama, blood stains were found on
the southern side of the main road near the site of
accident. However, in the panchnama position of vehicles
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3275/2024 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
are mentioned on the northern side of road. It is further
submitted that according to panchnama, the width of the
road is 12 feet. The date of accident is on 15.09.2019 FIR
was filed and panchnama was conducted on 17.09.2019 as
seen from Exhs.19 and 20 respectively. It is submitted
that, considering the nature of accident, negligence should
be apportioned equally on both drivers at 50% each.
Therefore, the matter be remanded back for
reconsideration on the issue of quantum of compensation
only.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No.3
- Insurance Company has candidly submitted that, as per
the panchnama, the blood stains were found on the
southern side of the road. Since, the Panchnama was
carried on next day of accident, the position of the
vehicles might have been removed from the site of
accident as the place of accident was on main road. Both
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3275/2024 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
vehicles later found on the western side of the road.
Considering the said fact that exact position of vehicles
cannot be ascertained from panchnama and therefore,
negligence be apportioned equally 50% each to both
drivers.
6. It is also noted that the driver of motorcycle
No.GJ-17-BL-2704, who was an eye witness of the
accident, did not choose to file a claim nor did he give
any evidence regarding the accident. Further, the blood
stains were found on the southern side of the accident
site, which is the correct side of motorcycle No.GJ-6-FM-
5347. The Panchnama suggests the accident occurred at an
intersection of road and the learned Tribunal erred in
holding deceased solely responsible for the accident.
7. Considering the consensus being arrived at by
and between the learned advocates for the respective
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3275/2024 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
parties, the impugned judgment and award is set aside.
Both the drivers of the vehicles are held negligent to the
extent of 50% each. The claim petition is remanded back
to the learned Tribunal for a fresh adjudication on the
issue of quantum of compensation only. The parties are
not permitted to reopen or contest the question of
negligence However, they are allowed to lead both oral
and documentary evidence with respect to quantum of
compensation only.
Learned Tribunal is directed to conclude the
proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of
receipt of this order only on the question of quantum.
Learned Tribunal shall not reassess the proportion of
negligence as it has already been determined as above.
Parties are directed to co-operate with the learned
Tribunal for expeditious disposal of MACP No.249 of 2019
without asking for unnecessary adjournments.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3275/2024 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
8. In view of the above observations and
directions, present First Appeal is allowed accordingly.
9. Record and proceedings, if any, received, be
sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
