[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Kavan Rajeshbhai Patel vs Bharat Tulsidas Dasani on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1822/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1822 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KAVAN RAJESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
BHARAT TULSIDAS DASANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal have been preferred against the
impugned judgment and award dated 18.01.2019 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No. 96 of 2012, whereby the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum
of Rs.91,120/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation and original opponent Nos.2 to
5/respondent Nos.2 to 5 were exonerated from satisfying the
award.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the
captioned appeal are summarized as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1822/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
i. On 27.10.2011, the appellant along with his
relatives were travelling on motorcycle GJ-09-R-
8158 from his house at Naroda to Sai Baba temple
to offer the prayer. The said motorcycle was being
driven by the Mr. Rakeshkumar Ramanbhai Patel
(respondent no.4 herein) at very moderate speed,
at the correct side of the road, after observing the
traffic rules and appellant herein was travelling as
a pillion rider. When they were passing by the
opposite side of the Sai Baba Temple, the
respondent No.1 herein came by driving
motorcycle bearing Registration no. GJ-01-LC-
5689 in a rash and negligent manner at excessive
speed, endangering human life and dashed with
the motorcycle in which the appellant was
travelling. Due to the impact of the said accident,
the appellant herein sustained grievous injuries. It
is also pleaded before the learned Tribunal that
the accident had occurred owing to the sole
negligence of rider of the offending motorcycle
bearing Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689.
ii. Having been served with the notices/summons of
the Claim Petition, the respondent Nos.1 & 2
herein appeared before the learned Tribunal
through their advocate and filed their Written
Statement at Exh.21, thereby denying the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1822/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
averments made in the Claim Petition in toto and
pleaded that the accident did not occur due to the
negligence of respondent No.1 herein.
Respondent No.3 - IFFKO Tokyo General
Insurance Company Limited filed its Written
Statement at Exh.31, thereby denying the
averments made in the Claim Petition in toto, and
contended that the accident occurred owing to
the sole negligence of the claimant himself and
prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iii. Having considered the pleadings of the parties
and the material available on record, the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.91,120/- along with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of
filing of the claim petition till its realization, as
compensation. However, the respondent no.2-
owner of the offending motorcycle and
respondent No.3 - Insurance Company of the
offending motorcycle, were exonerated on the
ground that the claimant/appellant herein could
not prove the involvement of the said motorcycle
in the accident, whereas respondent Nos. 4 & 5
were exonerated, as the accident did not take
place due to the negligence of respondent No.4
herein.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1822/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
iv. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the original
claimant/appellant herein preferred the captioned
appeal thereby challenging the exoneration of
respondent Nos.2 & 3.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Ms. Spruha Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of Mr. Tirth Nayak, learned counsel for the
claimant/appellant, vehemently submitted that in the original
complaint, the wrong registration number of the motorcycle
which caused the accident came to be mentioned. However, in
the subsequent statement of the complainant/appellant
recorded by the police, the correct registration number of the
motorcycle involved in the accident was revealed. She further
submitted that the original claimant/appellant had mentioned
the correct registration number of the motorcycle, i.e.,
Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689, in the claim petition. She also
submitted that the claimant/appellant filed an affidavit in
examination-in-chief narrating the correct registration
number of the motorcycle. She further submitted that the
version of the claimant/appellant herein throughout the trial
before the learned Tribunal was that the motorcycle bearing
Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689 was involved in the said
accident. However, the learned Tribunal, considering the
charge-sheet in which some interpolation in the registration
number appears to have been made, exonerated respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1822/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
Nos. 2 and 3 from satisfying the award on technical grounds.
She further submitted that where there is some discrepancy
between the version of the claimant/appellant and the version
recorded in the police papers, the version of the claimant
deserves to be given more weightage. In support of her
submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
claimant/appellant herein placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Chamundeswari & Ors., [Civil Appeal No.
6151 of 2011], reported in 2021 ACJ 2558. Relying upon the
ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the present appeal deserves
to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company vehemently argued that the learned
Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. He
further submitted that the charge-sheet was filed against the
rider of a motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-01-LH-6844,
therefore, the claimant/appellant herein could not prove the
involvement of the motorcycle in question; as such, contended
that the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the
respondent No.3 -Insurance Company from satisfying the
award. He further submitted that the present appeal is devoid
of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1822/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused the material
available on record, it is to be noted that, in para 9 of the
Claim Petition, the claimant/appellant herein had pleaded that
respondent No.1 herein came with a motorcycle bearing
Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689 in a rash and negligent
manner and caused the accident. The notices of the Claim
Petition were duly served upon the respondents. The
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed the Written Statement at Exh.21,
thereby denying their negligence in causing the accident. The
Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company also filed its Written
Statement at Exh.31, wherein it has not denied the
involvement of the motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-01-
LC-5689, rather, pleaded that the claimant himself was much
more negligent than the rider of motorcycle bearing
Registration No.GJ-01-LC-5689. Hence, the Respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company has not specifically denied the
involvement of the motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-01-
LC-5689 in the said accident. In addition to this, the claimant/
appellant herein had filed the affidavit in examination-in-chief
at Exh.37, wherein he has narrated the very same registration
number of the offending motorcycle. He also stepped into the
witness-box for his cross-examination and was cross-examined
by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. However,
the said fact of involvement was not challenged by the
Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company even in the cross-
examination. At this juncture, it is to noted that when the
complaint was made, the complainant had wrongly mentioned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1822/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
the registration number of the motorcycle involved in the
accident as GJ-01-LH-6844, however, in his subsequent
statement recorded by the police on 27.10.2011, he clarified
that the correct registration number of the motorcycle
involved in the accident was GJ-01-LC-5689. Though the
correct registration number was revealed to the Investigating
Officer, yet when the charge-sheet was filed, the Investigating
Officer mentioned the registration number of the motorcycle
as GJ-01-LH-6844. Perusal of the said charge-sheet further
transpires that there is some interpolation and overwriting in
mentioning the registration number of motorcycle. The
charge-sheet further transpires that it was filed against the
rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-01-LC-
5689. The rider and owner of the offending vehicle (i.e.,
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein) appeared before the learned
Tribunal but did not challenge the involvement of the said
motorcycle. The claimant/appellant herein had remained firm
to his version throughout the proceedings before the learned
Tribunal. It is settled preposition of law that the claimant has
to prove his claim on the preponderance of probability and not
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in my considered view, the
claimant/appellant had successfully proved before the learned
Tribunal that the vehicle involved in the accident was the
motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-01-LC-5689.
7. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Chamundeshwari (supra), wherein it is held that if any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1822/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
evidence before the tribunal runs contrary to the contents of
the FIR, then evidence recorded before the Tribunal has to be
given weightage over the FIR. Considering the ratio of the
aforesaid judgment and having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the learned Tribunal has
committed serious illegality in holding that it is not proved
that the motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-01-LC-5689
was involved in the accident. Thus, the findings returned by
the learned Tribunal on the point of involvement of motorcycle
is not sustainable and as such perverse, therefore, the same is
liable to be reversed. Accordingly it is held that the
motorcycle Registration bearing No. GJ-01-LC-5689 is
involved in the accident and caused the accident.
Consequently, the exoneration of respondent No.2 - Owner of
the offending vehicle & respondent No.3- Insurance Company
is not sustainable and accordingly, Original opponent Nos.1 to
3/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are held jointly and severally
liable to satisfying the award. No other plea raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the captioned
appeal stands allowed, and accordingly, original opponent
Nos.1 to 3/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are held jointly and
severally liable to satisfying the award.
9. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal along with
interest within a period of six weeks from today. Upon
depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1822/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
disburse the entire awarded amount to the original claimant
(deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification.
10. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this
Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned
forthwith. Records & Proceedings if any, be sent to the
learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
