[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rakeshkumar Ramanbhai Patel vs Bharat Tulsidas Dasani on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1821 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAKESHKUMAR RAMANBHAI 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
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has 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. 736 of 2011, whereby the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum
of Rs.74,430/- 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, respondent No.2 -
owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, were exonerated.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the
captioned appeal are summarized as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
i. On 27.10.2011, the appellant along with his wife
and nephew were travelling on motorcycle GJ-09-
R-8158 from his house at Narada to Sai Baba
temple to offer the prayer. The said motorcycle
was being driven by the claimant/appellant herein
at very moderate speed at the correct side of the
road, after observing the traffic rules. 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 of the appellant. 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 have chosen not to appear before the
learned Tribunal, however the respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company filed its Written Statement at
Exh.25, thereby denying the averments made in
the Claim Petition in toto, and contended that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
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.74,430/- 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
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.
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. Though the notices of the
Claim Petition were duly served upon the respondents, neither
the rider nor the owner of the offending motorcycle appeared
before the learned Tribunal to dispute the involvement of the
said motorcycle. The Insurance Company also filed its Written
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
Statement at Exh.25, 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 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.36, wherein at
para no.2, he 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 Insurance
Company even in the cross-examination. At this juncture, it is
to be noted that when the complaint was made, the
complainant had wrongly mentioned 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
transpires that it was filed against the rider of the motorcycle
bearing registration no. GJ-01-LC-5689, however, neither did
he appear before the learned Tribunal nor did he challenge
that he had been wrongly implicated in the said accident. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1821/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
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, all the respondents 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, all the respondents
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
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
