Gujarat High Court
Bhavyangbhai Pramodkumar Vaid vs Rakeshbhai Sureshbhai Thakor on 6 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3629/2012 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3629 of 2012
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 125 of 2013
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3629 of 2012
==========================================================
BHAVYANGBHAI PRAMODKUMAR VAID
Versus
RAKESHBHAI SURESHBHAI THAKOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 06/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
The captioned appeal and cross-objection arise out of the judgment
and award dated 28/09/2012 passed by the M.A.C.T., in M.A.C.P No.
180 of 1994 by the learned MACT, Vadodara.
2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
3. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, what
could be noticeable that learned tribunal is in dilemma while fastening the
liability upon the driver of the scooter and owner and exonerated the
insurance company. The learned tribunal issued the issue, accident for
evidence at length; but confused in appreciation of evidence. The papers
produced on record indicates that the accident took place due to dashing
of the auto-rickshaw which are statement in first breath; but later on, FIR
which is filed two days after the alleged accident, involved the scooter in
the road accident. FIR, charge-sheet papers and even the judgment
rendered in the criminal case produced before the tribunal shows that
accident took place due to involvement of the scooter. Even the driver of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3629/2012 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
the scooter has admitted and faced conviction; but in same breath, the
scooterist wrote a letter to the insurance company that his vehicle is not
involved in the road accident and scooterist is planted in the road
accident. The letter written by the scooterist is also in evidence before
the tribunal. All these evidence was required to be appreciated in deeper
way by the tribunal; however the tribunal has confused and failed to
appreciate the said aspect. (See paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment
and award) and yet holding the driver of the scooter liable while
exonerating the insurance company. In the opinion of this Court, issue
needs to be clarified by way of re-appreciation of evidence by the tribunal
while remanding the matter for fresh consideration and appreciation of
evidence by permitting both the parties to lead the evidence if they so
desire.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal and cross-objection are partly
allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside. The proceedings
of MACP No.180 of 1994 arising from MACT, Vadodara is remanded to
the tribunal concerned for fresh consideration permitting the parties to
lead necessary evidence if they so desire. Learned PDJ, Vadodara is
requested to hear the said case, as early as possible, preferably within
three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order. Both
the parties are directed to remain present before the tribunal concerned on
17/03/2025. If any amount is deposited by the appellant before the
tribunal, the same shall be continued in FDR and shall be subject to the
outcome of fresh decision on the claim petition.
Registry to return back the R & P forthwith; without fail.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
