Gujarat High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd vs Kamlaben Manubhai Machhi on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/6067/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6067 of 2019
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 378 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6067 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
KAMLABEN MANUBHAI MACHHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal and Cross-objection are filed against
the impugned judgment and award dated 31.07.2019 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) at
Rajpipla, District Narmada in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.44 of 2016.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/6067/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal are
that the accident took place on 18.12.2015 at about the 6:30
p.m. near Village Vasai within the jurisdiction of Dabhoi
(District- Vadodara) Police Station. It is the case of the appellant
on 18.12.2015, the deceased Ranjitbhai was coming back from
his work by riding motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-06-JL-
5937, when he reached near the Village Vasai at the place of
accident, in the meantime, the respondent No.1 herein came by
driving the tempo bearing registration No.GJ-06-W-5661 in rash
and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the
deceased from behind. In the said accident, the rider of the
motorcycle as well as the pillion rider Manojbhai Arvindbhai
Machhi sustained grievous injuries and the rider Ranjitbhai
died on the spot.
3. Upon being served with the notices of the claim petitions,
the respondent No.2 herein filed the written statement at Exh-
26, thereby denying the contentions raised in the claim petition
and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/6067/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
Tribunal framed the following issued at Exh-17 which are as
under:-
"1. Whether the applicants prove that deceased met
with a vehicular accidental death due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in
the accident?
2. Whether the applicant is entitled to get
compensation? If yes, what amount?
3. What award and against whom?"
5. Having considered the oral as well as the documentary
evidences on record, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the
claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.5,16,240/- along with
the interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
6. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company/respondent No.2
before the learned Tribunal has preferred the present appeal
while the original claimants preferred the cross-objections in the
captioned appeal for enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia appearing on behalf
of the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/6067/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
has not considered the material on record while deciding the
issue of negligence. He further submitted that though the
witness of the original claimants was cross-examined by the
Insurance Company, however, the learned Tribunal observed in
the impugned judgment that the witness of the claimants were
not cross-examined. He further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has also committed serious error in holding that the
Insurance Company has not led any evidence though the
sufficient evidences in the nature of oral as well as the
documentary were led before the learned Tribunal. He further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has totally ignored the
evidences led by the Insurance Company before the learned
Tribunal. Therefore, the findings on the Issue No.1 is not
sustainable. At the outset, learned advocate for the appellant
submitted that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on
Issue No.1 is perverse and liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim
appearing on behalf of the original claimants, who have also filed
the Cross objections, vehemently submitted that the learned
Tribunal has not awarded the adequate compensation to the
original claimants. At the outset, he challenged the award on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/6067/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
point of quantum.
10. Having considered the submissions of the learned
advocates for the parties and having perused the record, it is to
be noted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the
material on record while deciding the Issue No.1 i.e. of
negligence. Learned Tribunal has not considered the evidences
led by the Insurance Company rather the learned Tribunal
recorded in the impugned judgment that the Insurance
Company has not led any evidence. The said findings of the
learned Tribunal is perverse and not sustainable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
11. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award is
liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
learned Tribunal for re-hearing the claim petition on the point of
negligence as well as on the point of quantum afresh. It is made
clear that the learned Tribunal shall decide the claim petition
without being influenced by the observations made in the instant
order.
12. The learned Tribunal shall decide the matter within the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/6067/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
period of four months from today. Both the parties are directed
to co-operate with the learned Tribunal in earliest disposal of the
matter.
13. In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the
learned Tribunal. The amount lying deposited before the learned
Tribunal shall be kept with the learned Tribunal till the disposal
of the claim petition and thereafter be dealt as per directions of
the learned Tribunal.
14. R & P be sent to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
