Gujarat High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Hirabhai Ratanbhai Parmar on 7 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3174/2011 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3174 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3187 of 2011
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
HIRABHAI RATANBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4,5
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 7
MS.FALGUNI D.TRIVEDI(3912) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
2. Insofar as First Appeal No.3174 of 2011 is concerned, the solitary
contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Palak Thakkar appearing for
the insurance company that learned tribunal wrongly assessed the issue of
negligence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act.
Secondly, he would submit that deceased was riding the motorcycle
No.GJ-16-AE-459 after borrowing it from the owner and thus he became
the owner of the vehicle. By making this submission, he would submit to
allow this appeal.
3. While in respect of FA No.3187 of 2011 is concerned, he would
submit to pass necessary order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, what could be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3174/2011 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
noticed from the facts of the case that deceased was going on motorcycle
with Ganpatbhai dashed with the truck No.HR-38-C-9609. The legal
heirs of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV
Act being MACP No.816 of 2008 to get compensation under the
structured formula and the legal heirs of deceased Ganpatbhai being
pillion rider filed petition under the Section 166 of the MV Act. Both the
petitions are allowed. Both the judgment and award are under challenge
by the captioned appeal.
5. If the contention of learned advocate Mr.Thakkar is examined that
the deceased was not third party but owner of the vehicle as he has
borrowed motorcycle; the said submission is not impressed upon this
Court as the insurance company has failed to establish that deceased had
any blood relation with the owner of the motorcycle. Merely someone
had taken up motorcycle from the owner that would not itself fall into the
shoes of the owner. He remains to be third party and therefore the said
submissions does not merit acceptance and accordingly, it is rejected.
6. The another submission is that while deciding claim petition filed
under Section 166 of the MV Act filed by the pillion rider the tribunal has
decided the issue of negligence and held the driver of the motorcycle
fully negligent in causing the road accident. The said finding arrived in
that claim petition on principle of res judicata would be fully applicable
to the facts of the present case. Thus, the tribunal has not committed any
error.
7. To be noted further that awarded amount which is under challenge
would fall in the category of meager amount and therefore even on the
ground of smallness the captioned appeal attracts dismissal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3174/2011 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
8. Accordingly, the captioned appeals are dismissed. The Tribunal
shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the
Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by
account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after
following due procedure.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal,
forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
