Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Narendrasing Kesasing Ravat on 31 January, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1532 of 2015
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 15 of 2016
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1532 of 2015
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1533 of 2015
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 16 of 2016
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1533 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
NARENDRASING KESASING RAVAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 31/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
1. Present appeals and Cross-objections are filed by the
respective appellants challenging the common judgment and
award dated 27.02.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, (Aux.), Panchmahals at Godhra. The First
Appeal No.1532 of 2015 together with Cross-Objection No.15
of 2016 is emanating from MAC Petition No.932 of 2010. The
First Appeal No.1533 of 2015 together with Cross-Objection
No.16 of 2016 is emanating from MAC Petition No.933 of
2010.
2. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for
the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for
respondent Nos.6.1 to 6.4.
3. Since both the appeals are emanating from the same facts
and submissions, therefore, both the appeals are taken up for
final disposal.
4. The brief facts in the present First Appeals are as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
4.1. On 26.10.2010 at approximately 3.30 a.m. deceased
Manojbhai Kalidas Panchal along with his wife Jyotiben alias
Joyotikaben Manojbhai Panchal, daughter Hetalben and son
Sagar along with other relatives were travelling in Qualis Car
No.GJ-05-AR-4389. They were travelling from Shirdi to
Godhara. When the car reached near Anandpura Village on
Vadodara-Halol Highway, a truck bearing Registration No.GJ-
12-Y-9515 was going ahead of the Qualis Car in a very high
speed. The driver of the Qualis Car i.e. original opponent No.4
was also driving the car at an excessive speed and in rash and
negligent manner. The driver of the truck suddenly applied
breaks and stopped the truck in the middle of the road. As the
driver of the Qualis Car lost control, dashed with the rear side of
the truck. Resultantly, Manojbhai Kalidas Panchal, his wife,
daughter and son suffered serious injuries and due to the
accidental injuries, Manojbhai and his wife Joyotiben alias
Jyotikaben died. Daughter Hetal and son Sagar sustained
injuries. The Qualis Car belonged to the ownership of original
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
opponent No.5. Opponent No.4 was driving the Qualis Car at
the relevant point of time. Original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are
the driver and owner respectively of the truck. Opponent No.3 is
the Insurance Company of the offending truck and opponent
No.6 is the Insurance Company of the Qualis Car. The minor
Hetalben has filed MACP No.932 of 2010 for a compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- before the learned Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal, District Panchmahals at Godhra and learned Tribunal
has awarded Rs.65,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of claim petition till its realization. The minor Sagar has
filed MACP No.933 of 2010 for a compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- before the learned Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal, District Panchmahals at Godhra and learned Tribunal
has awarded Rs.1,57,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of claim petition till its realization. The respective
insurance companies i.e. opponent No.3 and 6 filed their
respective written statements at Exhibit-27 and Exhibit-49
respectively and contested the claim petition. Opponent Nos.1, 2
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
did not file written statement. Opponent Nos.4 and 5 filed joint
written statement at Exhibit-31. After considering the oral as
well as documentary evidences, the learned Tribunal partly
allowed the claim petition against opponent Nos.1, 2 and 3 i.e.
the driver, owner and insurance company of the truck and
dismissed the petition against opponent Nos.4, 5 and 6 i.e. the
driver, owner and insurance company of Qualis Car. The
learned Tribunal passed an award directing opponent Nos.1, 2
and 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.65,500/-
and Rs.1,57,500/- in MACP No.932 of 2010 and 933 of 2010
respectively with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of claim petition till its realization with proportionate costs.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and award, the appellants in First Appeal No.1532 of 2015 and
First Appeal No.1533 of 2015, are before this Court challenging
the aforesaid impugned judgment and award.
5. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of
contributory negligence holding the truck solely negligent in
causing the accident is against the oral as well as the
documentary evidence. The oral deposition of the driver of the
truck at Exhibit-166 clearly mentions that the truck was
stationary at the edge of road due to breakdown. It is further
submitted that the compensation awarded to the claimant at
Rs.65,500/- considering the alleged disability to the minor
claimant-Hetalben Manojkumar is on a higher side and without
any evidence.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the
claimant has supported the award and submitted that the learned
Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the
appeal of the insurance company may be dismissed.
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
of appeals, the fact remains that the total amount involved in the
captioned First Appeals Nos.1532 of 2015 and 1533 of 2015 are
only Rs.65,500/- and Rs.1,57,000/- respectively.
8. Over and above the smallness of the amount, the minor
Sagar has sustained disability of 15% body as a whole.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, only on the ground of smallness of amount, it
is hereby clarified that this order may not be considered as
precedent in other claim petition arising out of the same
accident. The Cross-Objections filed by the original opponent
No.5-United India Insurance Company Limited is mainly on the
ground that the Qualis Car was hired by the deceased and the
Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation. It is also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
contended that by learned advocate for the Insurance Company,
United India Insurance Company Limited, that the FIR
explicitly states that the car was hired for a trip to Shirdi. The
insured car was used for hire and reward, the policy does not
cover such risk. On the quantum aspect, it is submitted that the
learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation by
applying the wrong multiplier and by miscalculating the
compensation for loss of estate.
11. In our opinion, the grounds for challenge by way of cross-
objections are not entertainable for the aforesaid discussion. The
present appellant/s could not place on record any cogent and
convincing material to substantiate their contention regarding
use of the Qualis Car for hire and reward purpose. The quantum
of compensation which has been decided by this Court in the
aforesaid paragraphs eventually disentitles the appellant/s in
succeeding in the cross-objections. Resultantly, captioned
Cross-Objections are dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1532/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
12. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
