Gujarat High Court
Modi Yashwantkumar Ranchodlal vs Patel Ketankumar Jethalal on 30 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2010 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3222 of 2010
==========================================================
MODI YASHWANTKUMAR RANCHODLAL & ORS.
Versus
PATEL KETANKUMAR JETHALAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAIVAL D. PATEL for MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 30/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants - original
claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and award dated 13.4.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.980 of 2004.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.9.2004 in the evening,
on the way near village Kamana while the respondent no.1 was
driving the scooter, suddenly a dog came on way and thus the
scooter driver suddenly applied the brakes and the deceased fell
down and received serious injuries on head and died during the
treatment. That the said accident happened due to the rash and
negligent, speedy driving done by the respondent no.1 and that
since he could not control the vehicle and since he was driving
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2010 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
the vehicle at a high speed endangering human lives the said
accident took place leading to the death for which the claim
petition was filed before the MACT at Mehsana.
3. Heard learned advocate for the appellants.
4. Learned advocate for the insurance company since elevated
to the bench of this Court, on 12.12.2024, notice was issued to
the insurance company and the same was served, but none
appears for the insurance company.
5. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the
ground that name of the driver and number of the vehicle is not
mentioned in the FIR, filing of charge sheet against the driver of
the vehicle is of no use and therefore, the claimant has failed to
prove the involvement of the vehicle in the claim petition. Taking
approach by the learned Tribunal is unsolicited to the provisions
of law. The claimant who has filed the claim petition under the
MV Act is required to prove the case on principle of
preponderance of probabilities and is required to prove the
evidence in a manner that the fact should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Filing of charge sheet has not been
challenged by the scooter driver or the respondent insurance
company during the proceedings of the claim petition itself,
which itself is sufficient to believe involvement of the vehicle in
the road accident. Merely, delay in filing the FIR or not
mentioning the name of the driver or vehicle number in the FIR
is of no significance. If the investigation carried out by the police
remained unchallenged at the end of the driver or the insurance
company and proves that vehicle is involved, the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2010 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
Tribunal on his own caprices and whims cannot come to the
conclusion that the vehicle is not involved in the road accident.
6. At this juncture, judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajani
Sahoo & Ors. Rendered in SLP No.29302 of 2019, in para 7 to 9
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2010 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
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."
9. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the
position that the question regarding negligence which is
essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle
accident claim should be considered based on the
evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police
records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of
the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking
into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is
impermissible or inadmissible."
7. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Velu and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2010 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
another rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.32138 of
2018, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:-
"We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for
the parties at length and we do not think that the order
of the High Court is sustainable for the simple reason
that there was not even an iota of evidence before the
Tribunal or before the High Court to have shown that
the injuries was sustained in a motor accident except
for the delayed FIR. In a given case a delayed FIR will
not matter. Merely because the FIR has been delayed a
claim cannot be rejected but in the present case
considering that all the available evidences points out
towards a skid and fall and not a motor accident, the
delayed FIR also, require a relevance, particularly now
we have been told that FIR itself has not been
proceeded. Even the police in the FIR also came to the
conclusion that there was no motor accident and had
filed a closure report."
8. In absence of any cry for committed fraud, mere delay in
filing the FIR will not be a ground to exonerate the insurance
company. In view of above, the learned Tribunal has committed
serious error in dismissing the claim petition and therefore, the
matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal
for fresh decision.
9. In view of above, present First Appeal is allowed and
impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside. MACP
No. 980 of 2004 is restored to its original proceedings.
9.1 The learned Tribunal is directed to issue notice to the
claimant as well as to the respondents and to proceed further to
decide the petition on its own merits without being influenced by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3222/2010 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
its earlier order, as early as possible, preferably within six
months from the date of receipt of this order.
9.2 Both the parties are at liberty to lead fresh evidence, if they
so desire.
9.3 The original claimant shall remain present before the
learned Tribunal on 12.2.2025.
9.4 R & P, if any, to be sent back to the concerned Court
immediately preferably on or before 12.2.2025.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
