Gujarat High Court
Harshaben Jatinbhai Dabhi vs Bhupendrasinh Udesinh Solanki on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3678/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3678 of 2023
==========================================================
HARSHABEN JATINBHAI DABHI & ORS.
Versus
BHUPENDRASINH UDESINH SOLANKI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 23.01.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
Lunavada, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.188 of 2019, the appellants
- claimants have preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
2) Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned counsel for the appellants , Mr.
Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Chirayu A. Mehta,
learned counsel for respondent No.3. Though served, none appears for
respondent No.2.
3) It is the case of the claimants that on 28.11.2019 in night hours, when
the deceased along with his family members were going in car bearing
registration NO.GJ-35-B-7492 from Balasinor to Ahmedabad on correct side
of the road, at that time, one tractor along with trailor bearing registration
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3678/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
No.GJ-07-Y-2215 loaded with wood was also going on same direction in rash
and negligent manner without any reflector or light and therefore, the car
of the deceased dashed with the tractor from backside and accident
occurred and deceased died on the spot. FIR came to be lodged at Balasinor
Police Station.
4) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal
committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the basis of mere
presumption and assumption, even though the driver of the offending
vehicle did not examine any witness to prove absence of negligence on the
part of the offending tractor. Nor did the driver step into the witness box.
Instead of drawing appropriate inferences, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
petition on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove negligence of
opponent No. 1. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have
considered that a trailer is not a self-propelled vehicle and is always
attached to a tractor when in use. Therefore, the act of the driver would
render the owners of both the tractor and the trailer jointly liable to pay
compensation, and the insurance company would be required to indemnify
the owners' liability toward third parties. Hence, learned counsel has
requested that the present appeal be allowed as prayed for.
5) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has opposed the present
appeal and submitted that the claimants failed to prove negligence on the
part of opponent No.1 and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any
error. He has further submitted that, as per the pleadings, it is clearly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3678/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
revealed that the trailer was lying and the car dashed with the trailer from
the backside. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of the tractor.
Therefore, he has requested that the present appeal be dismissed.
6) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing
the material placed on record, it appears that, on the aspect of negligence,
the Tribunal observed that, considering the complaint and panchnama, the
alleged incident took place when the car rammed into the trailer bearing
registration No. GJ-7-Y-2215, which was loaded with wooden logs. It further
appears that the said trailer had neither any reflector nor any parking light.
Though the respondents did not examine the driver of the tractor to prove
or point out any negligence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
driver of the tractor was not negligent. However, upon perusal of the
record, it appears that the accident occurred due to the wooden logs
loaded outside the trailer. It is needless to say that the tractor and trailer
together consider a single vehicle for operational purposes, as a trailer
cannot be propelled or pulled in the absence of a tractor. In this regard,
reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Honnamma &
Ors., 2025 INSC 625. Considering the facts of the case and the law laid
down in this decision, the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal on the aspect
of negligence deserves to be negatived.
7) Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 23.01.2023 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lunawada in Motor Accident Claim
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3678/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
Petition No. 188 of 2019 is hereby quashed. Without entering into the
merits, the proceedings of MACP No. 188 of 2019 are remanded to the
Tribunal for a fresh decision on the aspect of negligence. The Tribunal after
affording an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and prove
negligence, shall decide the matter independently on its own merits, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
Tribunal concerned forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
