Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd (Hub) vs Ramniklal Jeshankar Pandya on 26 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2846/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2846 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD (HUB)
Versus
RAMNIKLAL JESHANKAR PANDYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,6
MS KIRAN D PANDEY(3337) for the Defendant(s) No. 8
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 26/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been filed against the
impugned judgment and award dated 30.06.2010 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
Jamnagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 8 of 2004, whereby the learned
Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum
of Rs. 14,11,988/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eleven Thousand
Nine Hundred Eighty-Eight Only) along with interest at the
rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the Claim
Petition until its realization, as compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2846/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the instant
appeal are summarized as under:-
i. On 06.11.2003, Mr. Kantilal Ramniklal Pandya
(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), was
going from Jamnagar to Surat by driving S.T. bus
bearing Registration No. GJ-18-V-5289. When the
deceased reached near village Palej, Opposite
Sama Hotel on 07.11.2003 at 5:30 a.m., the front
tyre of the said S.T. bus got punctured and the
deceased halted the bus to change its wheel.
While he was changing the wheel, a truck bearing
Registration No. MH-39-C-0721, being driven by
driver of original opponent No.1, came at
excessive speed, in a rash and negligent manner
and hit the S.T. bus from behind, thereby causing
the accident. In the said vehicular accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and he
succumbed to the injuries during treatment.
ii. It is also the case of the original
claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein before
the learned Tribunal that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was aged about 41 years
and was gainfully employed with S.T. Corporation,
earning a salary of Rs.9,800/- per month,
therefore, original claimants/respondent Nos.1 to
6 preferred the Claim Petition before the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2846/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.18,00,000/-.
iii. Original opponent No.1/Respondent No.7 herein -
owner of offending truck bearing Registration No.
MH-39-C-0721 was proceeded ex-parte before the
learned Tribunal, however, original opponent
No.3/appellant herein - Insurance Company filed
its Written Statement at Exh. 16, stating therein
that the driver of the offending truck was not
holding an effective and valid license to drive the
truck at the time of the accident. It was also
contended by the Insurance Company that the
S.T. bus was parked in the middle of the road
without putting any obstacles, and side indicators
were not switched on and alleged that the
accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of
the deceased himself.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties
and the material available on record, the learned
Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh. 33:-
i. Whether the petitioners prove that
deceased died because of injuries sustained
due to rash and /or negligent driving on the
part of the driver of the motor vehicle
involved in the said accident ?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2846/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation ? If yes, what amount and
from whom ?
iii. What award?
v. Having considered the facts and evidences on
record, the learned Tribunal held that the
accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of
the driver of the truck and after considering the
income and other criteria of the deceased,
awarded a sum of Rs. 14,11,988/- (Rupees
Fourteen Lakhs Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred
Eighty-Eight Only) along with interest at the rate
of 7% per annum from the date of filing the Claim
Petition until its realization, as compensation.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, original opponent
No.3/appellant herein - Insurance Company has
preferred the insant appeal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Ms. Karuna V. Rahevar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant- Insurance Company vehemently submitted that
at the time of the accident, the S.T. bus was lying stationary
and it was parked in the middle of the road without observing
any traffic rules, as indicators were not switched on, and no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2846/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
obstacles were put on the road. She contended that the
deceased himself was contributarily negligent to the extent of
50% in causing the accident. She further contended that the
learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality by holding
the driver of the truck solely negligent for causing the
accident. She submitted that the findings returned by the
learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is required to be
reversed and contended that the deceased ought to be held
contributarily negligent to the extent of 50% in causing the
accident. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company
placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole &
Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 10648 of 2024], decided on 19th
September, 2024. Relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid
judgment, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance
Company submitted that since the S.T. bus was lying
stationary at the time of accident, the deceased could be held
negligent for causing the accident. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and award is required to be modified to that extent.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Jaimin Pandya, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of Mr. Premal Rachh, learned advocate
for the original claimants vehemently submitted that the
learned Tribunal had rightly considered the evidence on
record and thereafter came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver
of the truck. He further submitted that there is no infirmity in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2846/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
the impugned judgment and award and contended that the
present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having gone through the material
available on record, it is to be noted that the FIR of the
accident was lodged by the driver of the offending truck
himself. The said FIR is proved at Exh.39. In the FIR, the
driver of the truck stated that the accident occurred because
he could not see the S.T. bus and that the brake of the truck
got stuck; therefore, he could not apply the brake. On perusal
of the FIR, it can be seen that the driver of the truck has not
stated anywhere that the S.T. bus was parked in the middle of
the road or that the indicator of the S.T. bus was not switched
on at the time of the accident. The appellant-Insurance
Company took the plea of negligence on the part of the
deceased, but the Insurance Company did not examine any
witness before the learned Tribunal to prove its defense. Even
the driver of the truck, who lodged the FIR, did not step into
the witness box to prove the negligence of the deceased.
Further, though the panchnama of the place of the accident
was proved at Exh.41, the position of both vehicles involved in
the accident from the edge or the middle of the road is not
clear. Thus, there is no evidence on record that can attribute
negligence on the part of the deceased. As far as reliance
placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sushma (supra) is concerned, it was observed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2846/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
that judgment that the driver of a stationary vehicle was held
negligent for causing the accident when the vehicle was
parked in the middle of the road without following traffic
rules, without switching on indicators, and without placing
any obstructions. Therefore, the facts of that case are totally
different from those in the present one, and therefore, the
ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case on hand. At this juncture it
would be profitable to refer to the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Sadiq & Ors. v.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported
in [(2014) 2 SCC 735], wherein at Para no. 29, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed as under:-
"29...............................................................
............ We find it pertinent to observe that both
the Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding the
Appellants/claimants in these appeals liable for
contributory negligence. The Tribunal arrived at the
above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that
the accident took place in the middle of the road in
the absence of any evidence to prove the same.
Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the
contribution of the Appellants/claimants in the
accident is not proved by the Respondents by
producing evidence and therefore, the finding of the
Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, which
has been upheld by the High Court, is set aside"
7. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the case
on hand, it is on record that neither in the FIR nor in the
Panchnama, has it been observed that the S.T. bus was
parked in the middle of the road. The original opponents have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2846/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
also not proved this fact by leading any evidence to show that
the S.T. bus was lying stationary in the middle of the road.
Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to prove the
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, I am of
the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in holding the driver of the offending
truck solely negligent for causing the accident. Therefore,
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award.
Accordingly, the same is liable to be upheld and the present
appeal is liable to be dismissed. As such, the captioned appeal
stands dismissed.
8. Learned Tribunal shall disburse the awarded amount of
compensation (after deducting deficit Court fee, if any) to the
original claimants, after due verification.
9. Amount, if any lying deposited in the captioned appeal
with the Registry of this Court, be transmitted to the learned
Tribunal concerned. Records and Proceedings, if any, be sent
to the concerned learned Tribunal. No order as to costs.
10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
