United India Insurance Company Limited vs Chandrakant Ramanbhai Patel
2025 Latest Caselaw 1918 Guj

Gujarat High Court

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Chandrakant Ramanbhai Patel on 13 January, 2025

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/1251/2013                                  ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1251 of 2013

                       ==========================================================
                                      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                                                       Versus
                                       CHANDRAKANT RAMANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Defendant(s) No. 3.1,3.2
                       RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                          Date : 13/01/2025
                                                            ORAL ORDER

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 28.12.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.717 of 2009.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on 20.01.2009, deceased Vijaybhai was going on his cycle and when he reached near the place of accident, the driver of offending vehicle being motorcycle No.GJ-20-6236 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the cycle of the deceased. As a result, the accident took place and deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased have filed aforestated claim petition under Section 166

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1251/2013 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award dated 28.12.2012 has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.7,24,060/-. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati appearing for the Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr.MTM Hakim appearing for the claimants.

4. Based upon two police statements recorded during the investigation of the FIR dated 08.02.2009, learned advocate Mr.Nanavati would submit that there is doubt on the involvement of the offending vehicle No.GJ-20-6236 in mowing down young boy aged 14 years in the road accident. He would further submit that even the FIR of the accident was lately filed, however, learned Tribunal has brushed all these contentions on the ground that the driver of the errant vehicle did not step into the witness-box to deny the allegations levelled against him. He would further submit that learned Tribunal erred in believing that the errant Vehicle No.GJ-20-6236 is involved in the road accident. Therefore, he submits to allow this appeal and to dismiss the claim petition against opponent Nos.1 to 3.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Hakim to support the impugned judgment and award submits that though in the FIR, the registration number of the errant vehicle is not mentioned, the charge-sheet is filed against opponent No.1 and in view of that, involvement of the errant vehicle is proved. Therefore, he submits that learned Tribunal has rightly passed the judgment and award against the opponent Nos.1 to 3.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1251/2013 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

6. Having heard learned advocates for both side, what could be noticed that the appeal of the Insurance Company is mainly on the ground that FIR is missing registration number of the errant vehicle. The statements of two witnesses are recorded on 08.02.2009 stating different facts with regard to involvement of vehicle No.GJ-20-6236. The panchanama of the place produced on record at Exhibit-18 also does not disclose the presence of the vehicle on the spot.

7. It is admitted position that FIR does not contain registration number of the motorcycle. The statements of one of eye witness Bharatbhai produced on record at Mark-16/2 also does not disclose number of the motorcycle. But the statement of Ishwarbhai Bharwad, the claimant recorded during the investigation discloses the number of the vehicle involved in the road accident. Chargesheet is also filed against opponent No.1. Police in investigation has come to the conclusion that opponent No.1 was riding the motorcycle No.GJ-20-6236 and dashed to the minor cyclist in the village Jetpur. This chargesheet is also placed on record by the claimants. Opponent No.2 who is made accused in the chargesheet did not come forward to depose before the learned Tribunal. The Insurance Company has not done anything to lead evidence of opponent No.1 to establish its contention. Opponent No.1 has not questioned the filing of the chargesheet against him. All these aspects suggest that the contention raised by the Insurance Company is incorrect or does not support by any legal aspect.

8. It is apt to note that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has to decide the claim petition on the touchstone of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1251/2013 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

preponderance of probabilities. It is not expected to decide the issue from beyond reasonable doubt. Filing of chargesheet against opponent No.1 and having not been questioned either by opponent No.1 or by the Insurance Company is sufficient to believe the involvement of the vehicle.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajani Sahoo and others - 2025 Live Law (SC) 9, after referring to the judgment of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. - 2018 (5) SCC 656, held that chargesheet shows involvement of the driver driving vehicle rashly and negligently. Relevant para 7 and 8 reads as under :

"7. As regards the reliability of charge sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in the case of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.1, held in paragraph No.27, thus:-

"27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident.

This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1251/2013 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge- sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal".

(Emphasis Supplied)

8. It is true that the Tribunal had looked into the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR, final report and such other documents prepared by the police in connection with the accident in question. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that based on the final report, the driver of the offending truck was tried and found guilty for rash and negligent driving. The High Court took note of such aspects and found no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and consequently dismissed the appeal. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi & Anr.2, this Court held thus:-

"12. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1251/2013 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025

undefined

10. In Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi and another

- 2023 (13) SCC 510, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

"9. *** A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi."

11. Thus, there can be no dispute with regard to the provision of law that the chargesheet and other police papers collected during the investigation of offence can be relied upon by the learned Tribunal and therefore for aforesaid purpose i.e. for deciding involvement of the road accident, filing of chargesheet is sufficient. It establishes involvement of the vehicle, more particularly when Insurance Company has failed to put any other case before the learned Tribunal.

12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal sans merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Registry is directed to send back the record and proceedings, if any, to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

(J. C. DOSHI, J) GAURAV J THAKER