Gujarat High Court
Vijyaben Wd/O Natvarsinh Sultansinh vs Vohra Iliyasbhai Abdulbhai (Deleted As ... on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1660/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1660 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VIJYABEN WD/O NATVARSINH SULTANSINH & ANR.
Versus
VOHRA ILIYASBHAI ABDULBHAI (DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED
05.01.2023) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KARANSINH SOLANKI(6541) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal (Main),
Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP No.156/2011, whereby the learned
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,20,218/- and deducted 20% of
the awarded amount on account of the negligence of the deceased.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal are that on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1660/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
27.11.2010, Natvarsinh was going to Godhra from his village by riding
his Motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-17 AA-2270. When he was
passing near Bahi-Khandiya Road, near the turning, in the meantime,
the respondent no.1 came by driving his Tanker bearing registration
no.GJ-17 Y-9122 in rash and negligent manner with an excessive
speed so as to endanger the human life and dashed with the
Motorcycle, on which the said Natvarsinh was riding. In the said
accident, Natvarsinh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the
injuries. It is further averred that at the time of accident, the deceased
was working as a peon in the Mamlatdar Office, Limkheda and was
aged about 55 years. It has been further averred that the accident took
place owing to the sole negligence of respondent no.1/driver of the
tanker.
3. Having been served with the summons/notices of the petition, the
respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle had filed the written
statement at Exh.19, thereby denying all the averments made in the
claim petition in toto and prayed for dismissal. The respondent no.3-
insurance company had also filed the written statement at Exh.24,
thereby denying all the contentions raised in the claim petition and in
brief, prayed for dismissal.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.32:-
(1) Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died
on account of rashness or negligence in driving on the part of the
driver/s of the vehicle/s involved in the accident?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1660/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
(2) What amount, if any, the claimant is entitled to by way of
compensation and from which of the opponents?
(3) What order?
5. In order to prove their claims, the original claimants/appellants
have led the following oral as well as documentary evidences before the
learned Tribunal:-
Sr. Description of Documents Exhibit/
No. Mark
1 Copy of affidavit of examination in chief of 35
Vijyaben
6. Having considered the material on record, the learned Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.15,20,218/- as a compensation. The learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1660/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
Tribunal has also deducted 20% of the awarded amount on account of
the negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has
awarded a total compensation (after deducting 20%) for a sum of
Rs.12,16,174/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the
original claimants/appellants herein.
7. Being aggrieved, the claimants/appellants herein challenged the
impugned judgment and award dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned
Tribunal on the ground of negligence.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted
that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in considering the
negligence to the extent of 20% of the rider of the motor cycle
(deceased). He further submitted that there is no evidence before the
learned Tribunal to attribute any negligence on the part of deceased to
the extent of 20%. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal heavily
relied on the panchnama, but the panchnama does not prove the
contributory negligence of the deceased. He further submitted that even
otherwise from the perusal of the panchnama, it is apparent that at the
time of accident, though the road was very narrow i.e. 12 feet wide only
at the place of accident but the driver of the tanker/respondent no.1 was
driving the tanker at excessive speed. He further submitted that it is
evident from the content of the panchnama at Exh.37 that skid marks of
the tyre was found on the road, which shows that the tanker was at
excessive speed. He further submitted that not only this throughout the
case, it is the version of the claimants/appellants that the accident
occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the tanker. Not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1660/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
only this, the police agency after completing the investigation, filed the
charge-sheet against the respondent no.1/driver of the tanker. He
further submitted that neither the driver of the offending vehicle stepped
into the witness box nor the insurance company has examined any
witness to prove the contributory negligence of the rider of the motor
cycle (deceased). He further submitted that the finding returned by the
learned Tribunal is perverse and not sustainable and liable to be
reversed on the point of negligence.
10. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that he is not challenging the award on the point of
quantum.
11. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned counsel for respondent no.3-
insurance company, vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in
the impugned judgment and award. He further submitted that the
learned Tribunal has after considering the panchnama, determined the
issue of negligence rightly. He further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the rider of the motor
cycle (deceased) was negligent to the extent of 20%. He further
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and
award. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. Having considered the submission of the learned counsels for the
parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that right
from the beginning, it is the case of the appellants/claimants herein that
the driver of the tanker/respondent no.1 was negligent for causing the
accident. It is also to be noted that the FIR was lodged against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1660/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
driver of the tanker and after carrying out the investigation, the
prosecution agency has filed the charge-sheet against the respondent
no.1. It is not on record that at any point of time, the respondent no.1 or
the owner of the vehicle has raised any concerned that they have been
falsely implicated in the present case. Not only this, though the
respondent no.1/driver of the tanker has filed the written statement,
thereby denying his negligence and other liabilities; however, he did not
step into the witness box to prove his innocence. Even from the perusal
of the panchnama, it is evident that at the place of the accident, the
road was very narrow i.e. only 12 feet wide. The panchnama further
shows that the tanker was damaged from the right hand side i.e. from
the driver side. Not only this, there were skid marks of the tyre of the
tanker on the road, which itself sufficient to show that the tanker was at
excessive speed when he applied the brake. It is settled preposition of
law that the learned Tribunal is not governed by the strict principles of
law of evidence and procedure and the learned Tribunal has to decide
the matter on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability. At this
juncture, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of Bimla Devi &
Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, reported in AIR
(2009) SC 2819, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
under:-
"15 In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic
view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of
an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be
possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to
establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.
For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration
the respective stories set forth by both the parties. "
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1660/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
13. At this juncture, the version of the claimants should be given
preference over the other evidences and at this stage, it would be
profitable to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Chamundeshwari Devi reported in 2021 JX (SC) 592.
14. Having considered the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and
applying the same in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I
am of the considered view that the finding returned by the learned
Tribunal on the point of negligence is perverse and the same is liable to
be set aside. Accordingly, the finding returned by the learned Tribunal
on the issue of negligence is deserved to be reversed and accordingly,
it is held that the accident has occurred owing to the sole negligence of
the respondent no.1, who is the driver of the offending tanker.
15. So far as the issue of quantum is concerned, the learned counsel
for the appellant fairly conceded that the learned Tribunal has awarded
the amount in accordance to the ratio of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.
16. Thus, in view of the above, the present appeal stands allowed
partly to the above extent and accordingly, the compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal is upheld. However, the learned Tribunal has
deducted 20% on account of the self negligence of the deceased,
therefore, the said finding is reversed and the appellant to recover a
sum of Rs.15,20,218/- from the respondent nos.1 to 3. Respondent
nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. If the
awarded amount is not deposited, the same will be deposited by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1660/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
respondent no.3/insurance company within a period of 4 weeks from
today. Upon depositing of said amount, the original claimants/appellants
shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. No order as to costs.
17. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
