Gujarat High Court
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Zubedaben Wd/O. Mahmadbhai Dawoodbhai ... on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 04/03/2025
Pronounced On : 23/06/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1487 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
ZUBEDABEN WD/O. MAHMADBHAI DAWOODBHAI DESAI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 11
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 10
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the
appellant, learned advocate Mr. A. V. Prajapati for
respondent Nos.1 to 8 and learned advocate Mr. Palak
H. Thakkar for respondent No.11. The Board indicates
that notice of Rule could not be served upon
respondent No.10. Perused the record.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by appellant -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
ONGC challenging the judgment and award dated
16.6.2007 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Bharuch in M.A.C.P. No.369 of 1997.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under:
* On 21.12.1994, deceased Mohammadbhai
Daoodbhai Desai, had hired two tractors for the
purpose of ploughing field bearing Survey
No.206/1 situated at Moje-Umarwada. Out of
two tractors, one tractor bearing registration
No.GJ-3-C-9040 was used for ploughing. The
Process of ploughing field commenced from
4.00 pm and at around 10.00 pm, during the
course of the said activity, due to spark
emanating from silencer of the tractor caught
fire and deceased sustained severe burn injuries
as he was near the tractor. Deceased was
immediately taken to Ankleshwar Hospital.
Thereafter, he was shifted to civil hospital,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
Bharuch where, during treatment, on
24.12.1994, he succumbed.
* Legal heirs of deceased filed claim petition
claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux), at Bharuch. Notices were served to
opponents.
* Opponent No.1 driver of tractor was
deleted vide Exh-30. Opponent Nos.2 owner,
opponent No.3 - Insurance Company of tractor
and opponent No.4 - ONGC appeared and filed
Written Statements vide Exhs-31, 19 & 16
respectively.
* Claimant No.1, widow of deceased filed her
examination in chief vide Exh-63 and produced
documentary evidences such as complaint,
Panchnama of place of accident, Inquest
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
Panchnama, PM report and Extract of Village
Form No.7/12 and 8-A in support of claim
petition.
* After considering the material placed on
record, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition. Opponent Nos.2 and 3 being owner and
Insurance company of tractor respectively were
exonerated while opponent No.4 was directed to
pay compensation of Rs.2,67,600/- with
proportionate costs and interest at the rate of
9% pa from the date of petition till realization.
* Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the appellant-
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. has
preferred present First Appeal on the ground of
negligence attributed on ONGC.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the contentions
raised in the Written Statement. It is the case pleaded
by appellant that complaint was lodged by Officer of
appellant alleging that deceased was guilty of theft of
oil condensioner by breaking the pipeline of ONGC
which was laid down in the farm and therefore
deceased is not entitled for compensation. It is further
submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have held
driver of tractor negligent and ought to have
exonerated appellant from the liability. It is the case of
claimants that there was a leakage in the pipeline and
due to spark in the silencer of tractor, fire broke out.
Considering the facts pleaded by claimants, spark in
the silencer is the route cause of accident and,
therefore, appellant has wrongly been mulcted with
liability to indemnify the insured by paying
compensation to claimants.
5. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal failed to
appreciate that Civil Suit was filed by claimants
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
suppressing the fact that claim petition is also filed for
compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles,
Act. It is further contended that driver of the tractor
was negligent in the happening of the accident. It is
further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded
compensation on a higher side and has assessed
income of deceased on excessive side. It is further
submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have
deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses
instead of 1/4th. Learned advocate for the appellant
would further submit that legal heirs of deceased are
not entitled to any amount under the head of pain,
shock and suffering. Except above, no other
submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for
the appellant.
6. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent -
Insurance Company has supported the judgment and
award and submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly
considered the evidence on record and awarded just
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
and reasonable compensation by holding appellant
negligent. The award passed by the learned Tribunal
does not require any interference looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case. It is also contended
that the fire broke out due to leakage in the pipeline of
ONGC and, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly held
ONGC negligent in the happening of the accident.
7. Learned advocate for respondent - claimant has
supported the judgment and award and further
submitted that the tractor was insured with the New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. In the unfortunate accident,
deceased has lost his life as there was a leakage in
the pipeline laid down by ONGC and due to spark in
the silencer of tractor, fire broke out. As deceased was
near the tractor, was seriously injured and lost his life.
At first instance, ONGC is negligent in the cause of
accident. However, as an alternate submission,
learned advocate for the claimant submitted that the
cause of fire is the spark in silencer of tractor and,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
therefore, the leakage in pipeline and the spark are
the cause of accident. It is therefore submitted that
even the driver and owner of tractor are equally
negligent in the cause of accident. Since the tractor is
insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the
insurance company is legally liable to pay
compensation to the claimant. The claimants are
claiming compensation from all opponents.
8. I have considered submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the respective parties and perused the
Record and Proceedings. It appears from the memo of
appeal that the appellant - ONGC has restricted the
claim in appeal to the extent of Rs.2,67,600/-. In the
written statements filed by ONGC and the insurance
company, facts are stated in common. Both ONGC as
well as insurance company have contended that on
the date of accident, persons had gone to the land for
committing theft of oil condensioner. A specific
allegation is made by the insurance company in its
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
written statement that the deceased had damaged the
pipeline and due to the damage in the pipeline, the
fire broke out. It is specifically contended that there
was no negligent act on the part of ONGC and, there
was no leakage in the pipeline. Both the opponents
have contended that deceased was a joint tort feasor.
It also appears that FIR Exh.88 was lodged on next
day of the incident by Deputy Superintendent
Engineer of ONGC named Maheshkumar Shrivastav.
The said complainant has also been examined by
appellant at Exh.87 and in his oral deposition, it is
stated that after the fire was extinguished, it was
found that the pipeline was damaged and the said
damage had occurred for the purpose of theft of oil. In
the cross examination, witness has replied that the
cause of fire could be because of the spark. No
substantial cross has been done on behalf of claimant
on the point of leakage in pipeline prior to fire took
place. It is for the claimant to establish at first
instance that there was a leakage in the pipeline and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
because of the spark in the silencer of tractor, fire
broke out. If the theory of claimant is examined,
undisputed fact coming out from the record is that the
cause of fire is leakage in the pipeline and spark in the
silencer of the tractor. The fire could not have been
broken out in absence of leakage in pipeline and
sparks in the silencer. Both the causes are responsible
for the fire. However, there is no evidence on record
that initially there was a leakage in the pipeline prior
to the spark happened in the silencer of tractor.
Therefore, ONGC only cannot be saddled with the
liability of paying compensation to the claimants. It is
noteworthy to mention at this stage that in the written
statement filed by the insurance company, a specific
statement is made that persons had gone to the land
for committing a theft of oil and, there was no leakage
in the pipeline and, hence, there is no negligent act on
the part of ONGC. A similar contention is raised by
ONGC in its written statement. So the appellant as
well as the insurance company are on the same line of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
defense that ONGC is not negligent. However,
unfortunately, the fire broke out which could not have
been broken out unless there is a leakage in the
pipeline. Similarly fire could not have been broken out
inspite leakage in pipeline unless the oil has contacted
with a spark.
9. Resultantly, the finding of ONGC - appellant being sole
negligent in the cause of accident is in absence of any
cogent and convincing direct evidence and, therefore,
the finding on negligence is required to be modified. I
am of view that the appellant as well as the driver of
the tractor, who has been deleted from the
proceedings vide Exh.30, are equally negligent in the
cause of accident. I am in agreement with the
submission of learned advocate for the claimant that
all original opponents are jointly and severally liable
for compensation to be paid to the claimants.
Therefore, the negligence is apportioned in the ratio of
50%:50% of the appellant and driver, owner and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1487/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
insurance company of the tractor. The amount of
compensation awarded by learned tribunal is not
under challenge by either sides and, therefore, I am
not inclined to interfere in the finding of quantum.
10. In the wake of above discussion, the claimants are
entitled to recover compensation awarded by learned
Tribunal jointly and severally from all original
opponents in the proportion of 50%:50% each.
Therefore, the first appeal is accordingly disposed of.
The impugned judgment and award is modified to the
aforesaid extent.
11. Record & Proceedings, if any, to be sent back to the
concerned Court immediately. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
