Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Rajeshwarikumari Janaksinh Chauhan on 9 January, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/963/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 963 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 964 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 965 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
RAJESHWARIKUMARI JANAKSINH CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JM BAROT(143) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 09/01/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI)
1. The captioned First Appeals are preferred by the
appellant-Insurance Company against the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/963/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha, at
Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.875 of
2006 and other allied matters, whereby the learned
tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati for
the appellant-original opponent No.3 and learned advocate
Mr.J.M.Barot for respondent Nos.1 and 2-original claimant
Nos.1 and 2.
3. Brief facts narrated in the present First Appeal
are as under:-
3.1 On 25.03.2006, one Janaksinh Chauhan was
going from Himatnagar to Prantij on his Motorcycle
bearing registration No.GJ-16-J-7887 with his wife
Pushpaben and minor daughters Priyanshukumari and
Rajeshwarikumari as pillion riders. At about 6.45 p.m.,
when they reached near Kohinoor Motors, Sim-village
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/963/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
Hajipur, original opponent No.1 driver of Truck bearing
registration No.RJ-14-1-G-5110, was going ahead of them,
and all of a sudden, the said truck applied brakes without
any sign and signal. Resultantly, the motorcycle rammed
into the backside of the truck resulting into serious injuries
to all the four persons riding on the motorcycle. Because
of the accidental injuries, Janaksinh Chauhan,
Priyanshukumari and Pushpaben died and
Rajeshwarikumari sustained serious bodily injuries.
3.2 Four separate claim petitions being Motor
Accident Claim Petition Nos.875, 876, 877 and 878 of
2006 were filed by the present respondent Nos.1 and 2
namely Rajeshwarikumari Janaksinh Chauhan and
Ruprajkumari Janaksinh Chauhan.
3.3 The captioned First Appeals are arising out of
Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.876, 877 of 2006 which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/963/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
were filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for a compensation
of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively and Claim
Petition No.878 of 2006 was filed by injured herself i.e.
respondent No.1 for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. All
four claim petitions were consolidated and common
evidence was recorded in MACP No.875 of 2006 and by a
common judgment and award dated 25.11.2010, learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at
Himatnagar partly allowed all four claim petitions by
holding truck driver negligent to the extent of 90% and
the motorcyclist-deceased Janksinh Chauhan to the extent
of 10% for the accident. The learned Tribunal while
deciding all four claim petitions awarded an amount of
compensation with interest @ 7.5% as follows:-
Number of petitions Amount in Rs.
MACP No.875 of 2006 15,91,783/
MACP No.876 of 2006 3,33,000/-
MACP No.877 of 2006 1,54,500/-
MACP No.878 of 2006 55,500/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/963/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the holding
of the driver of the truck negligent to the extent of 90%,
the appellant-Insurance Company is before this Court.
4. We have heard the submissions canvassed by the
learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials
available on record. Though, various grounds have been
raised in the memo of appeals, the fact remains that the
total amount involved in the captioned First Appeals
Nos.963, 964 and 965 of 2011 are only Rs.3,33,000/-,
Rs.1,54,500/- and Rs.55,000/- respectively.
5. Considering the smallness of amount, we have
found no reason to interfere with the impugned common
judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.
Hence, the captioned First Appeals are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
6. Accordingly, only on the ground of smallness of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/963/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/01/2025
undefined
amount, it is hereby clarified that this order may not be
considered as precedent in other claim petition arising out
of the same accident.
7. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Court/Tribunal.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
