Gujarat High Court
The National Insurance Company Limited vs Arjunbhai Tejaram Chaudhari on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4374 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
ARJUNBHAI TEJARAM CHAUDHARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] The National Insurance Company Limited (Original Opponent
No.6) has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved and
disastisfied with the judgment and award dated 17 th July, 2023 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad City in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.37 of 2012 against the opponent.
[2.0] It is pertinent to note that opponent No.4 - Reliance General
Insurance Company Limited is the insurance company of vehicle being
Truck No.GJ-4X-6257 involved in the accident while present appellant
- original opponent No.6 is the insurance company of the Truck Trailer
No.GJ-18X-9523.
[3.0] The case before the Tribunal was that the alleged accident took
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
place on 29th July, 2011 at 8:30 P.M. while the Truck Trailer No.GJ-18X-
9523 was transporting the railway tracks towards Bagodara and at
that time, the front wheel of the said vehicle got punctured and while
the cleaner of the said Truck Trailer (hereinafter referred to as
"stationary truck") was replacing the tire, he sustained grievous hurt
as, at that time, Truck No.GJ-4X-6257 dashed the said stationary truck
from behind and in connection with the aforesaid accident, FIR being I-
CR No.47 of 2011 came to be registered with the Bagodara Police
Station, Ahmedabad (Rural).
[4.0] The injured cleaner preferred claim petition being MACP No.37
of 2012 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.),
Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "learned Tribunal"). After
recording the evidence and giving an opportunity of hearing to all the
respective parties, learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the
claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.12,16,280/- with
interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of claim petition to
the claimant and fixed negligence of stationary truck at 75%
(opponent No.6) and 25% of Truck No.GJ-4X-6257 (opponent No.4).
[5.0] The present appellant - original opponent No.6 has assailed the
judgement and award passed by the learned Tribunal insofar as it
holds opponent No.6 to be negligent to the extent of 75% mainly on
the ground that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the
evidence and material produced on record and not properly
appreciated the chargesheet and the oral evidence and committed an
error in holding the driver of stationary truck to be negligent to the
extent of 75% in the alleged accident. Further, the injured claimant
who was a cleaner on the said insured stationary truck was an eye
witness who has clearly deposed that the reflectors/indicators of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
stationary truck were on, though the learned Tribunal has committed
an error in not accepting the said evidence and completely ignored
the evidence including the cross-examination of the said witness and
held the driver of stationary truck to be 75% negligent. Further, there
was sufficient space and width on the road for another vehicle to
easily pass through and the stationary truck was parked on the
extreme left side edge of the road. Hence, due to negligence on the
part of another vehicle being Truck No.GJ-4X-6257, alleged accident
took place and chargesheet and F.I.R. are also filed against the driver
of Truck No.GJ-4X-6257. Alternatively, he has submitted that both the
vehicles were heavy vehicles and even therefore also, apportionment
of the liability / negligence is required to be equal that is, 50-50% and
not 75% and 25% in any case. Hence, he has requested to allow the
present appeal.
[6.0] Learned advocate for respondent No.4 - Reliance General
Insurance Company Ltd. has refuted the said submission on the
ground that persuing the panchnama and other material, learned
Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and not committed
any error in holding the driver of the stationary truck to be 75%
negligent. On the contrary, as the heavy loaded stationary truck was
parked on the road without any precaution, liability of the stationary
truck was required to be considered at 100%. Hence, he has requested
to dismiss the present appeal.
[7.0] As the appellant - original opponent No.6 has not challanged the
award on the ground of quantum or on any other ground but only the
question of apportionment of negligence is challenged and hence,
present appeal is considered in narrow compass.
[8.0] Having heard learned advocates for both the parties, prima
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
facie, it appears that Truck Trailer No.GJ-18X-9523 was stationary and
loaded with iron railway tracks and another vehicle Truck bearing
registration No.GJ-4X-6257 dashed from behind with the said
stationary truck and while the cleaner was replacing the tire, alleged
accident took place and the cleaner sustained the injury and
subsequently got amputated. It is pertinent to note that the alleged
accident took place at 8:30 P.M. and vehicle No.GJ-18X-9523 was the
stationary vehicle. Learned Tribunal has not taken the note of any
evidence of eye-witness or driver of offending vehicles i.e. GJ-18X-
9523 and GJ-4X-6257 been examined and no evidence is produced. In
the cross-examination of the claimant cleaner done by opponent No.4,
it has been brought out that the accident took place at midnight at
around 11 to 12 O'clock while the claimant cleaner was applying in the
front wheel of the truck for replacing the punctured tire for which
hard surface was required. At that time, while applying the jack, the
claimant cleaner could not see the truck coming from behind as the
front wheel of the stationary truck was punctured and therefore, it
was not possible to move the stationary truck from the road, which
was parked on the edge of the road.
[8.1] While appreciating the evidence, the learned Tribunal came to
the conclusion that the said evidence is nothing but improvement as,
nowhere it is stated either in the panchnama or in any document of
the chargesheet or the police papers that the parking lights and
indicators of the stationary truck were on and for the first time, the
said fact is deposed before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has
also taken the note of the fact that the Truck No.GJ-4X-6257 dashed
from back and was badly damaged including the cabin and due to
negligent parking of the stationary truck, the alleged accident took
place. Hence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion holding
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
driver of stationary truck to be 75% negligent.
[9.0] It is pertinent to note that the driver of the stationary truck at
the middle of the highway which has created obstruction. Further,
there were no indicators and parking lights which resulted into the
accident. While parking the vehicle at the public place and that too at
the public highway, the truck was required to be parked with due care
and caution by applying the parking lights and after due care and
caution, switching on parking lights and putting any prominent
markers or barriers around the vehicle for warning the passing
vehicles. No such evidence or material was found.
[9.1] Further, as per Section 121 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
driver of the motor vehicle shall make such signals on such occasions
and as per Section 122, no person incharge of the motor vehicle shall
cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain
at rest at any public place which is likely to cause danger, obstruction
or undue inconvenience to the other users of road or the public place.
Under Sections 126 and 127(2) of the MV Act, driver of stationary
vehicle is duty bound to immediately remove such vehicle from the
public place by towing service or try to remove the obstruction as per
Regulation 15 of Rules of Road Regulation of 1989 which was also
prevailing on the date of the incident and every driver of motor
vehicle shall park the vehicle in such a way that does not cause or is
not likely to cause danger/obstruction or any undue inconvenience to
the other road users and it cast the duty on the driver of the motor
vehicle that vehicle shall not be parked at or near the road crossing or
on the main road.
[9.2] Herein, in the case on hand, the vehicle remained on the
highway road due to tyre punctured and as per the evidence produced
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4374/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2025
undefined
on record, it appears that the vehicle was left without any parking
lights and without any warnings on the highway. Considering the
permissible speed limits and as accepted speed situation, it would be
improper to hold that the driver of the vehicle travelling through the
highway in the dead of night in a pitch-dark condition would be able to
make out that the stationary vehicle is lying in the middle of the road
within the reasonable distance so that he could apply the brake to
avoid the collision. In this regard, reference is required to be made to
Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole (2024 INSC 706), wherein liability
of stationary vehicle came to be fixed.
[10.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, perusing the evidence
produced on record, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate
jurisdiction. Hence, present appeal stands dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
GARVITA
