[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. ... vs Legal Heirs Of Dahyabhai Umedsinh ... on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3344/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3344 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT)
NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3344 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF DAHYABHAI UMEDSINH PARMAR (DECEASED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 22/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the
impugned judgment and award dated 06.04.2018 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at
Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No. 421 of 2016, whereby the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.12,00,861/- along with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3344/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the
captioned appeal are summarized as under:-
i. On 22.12.2015, Mr. Dahyabhai Parmar
(hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), was
riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-7-
BL-7814 along with his wife - Ms. Sushilaben
(original claimant No.1) and Mr. Ganpatbhai, as
pillion riders. In the meantime, original opponent
No.1/respondent No.2 herein came by driving his
Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.GJ-7-BN-
2436 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling.
As a result of the said vehicular accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries, and he
succumbed to the said injuries during treatment.
ii. It is the case of the original claimants/respondent
Nos.1.1 to 1.4 herein before the learned Tribunal
that at the time of the accident, the deceased was
aged about 50 years and he was gainfully
engaged in agricultural and animal husbandry
work, thereby earning Rs.12,000/- per month.
Therefore, the original claimants preferred the
Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal
seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.20,00,000/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3344/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
the Claim Petition, original opponent
No.1/respondent No.2 herein - driver of the alto
car, had chosen not to appear before the learned
Tribunal, while original opponent No.2/appellant
herein - Royal Sundaram General Insurance
Company Limited filed its Written Statement at
Exh.28, thereby denying the averments made in
the Claim Petition in toto, and in brief, prayed for
dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties
and the material available on record, the learned
Tribunal had framed the following issues for
determination:-
1. Whether the applicant proves that,
deceased died due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the vehicle involved
in the vehicular accident as contended ?
2. Whether the applicant is entitled to get
compensation ? If yes, what amount and
from whom ?
3. What award and order ?
v. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on
record and the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels for the respective parties, the
learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition
and awarded a sum of Rs.12,00,861/- along with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3344/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the original
opponent No.2/appellant herein - Insurance
Company has preferred the captioned appeal on
the ground of negligence as well as quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company vehemently
submitted that the accident had occurred owing to the rash
and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the
motorcycle (deceased). He further submitted that the FIR
came to be lodged by the driver of the Alto car. He contended
that the FIR was lodged against the rider of the motorcycle
(deceased). He further submitted that after completing the
investigation, the investigation agency had also filed the
abated summary against the rider of the motorcycle
(deceased), therefore, original opponent No.1/respondent
No.2 herein - the driver of the alto car cannot be held
negligent for causing the accident. Learned counsel for the
appellant - Insurance Company further submitted that the
learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and award had
awarded excessive amount of compensation, as such, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3344/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
same is required to be reduced. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and award be modified accordingly.
5. Per contra, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the original claimants/respondents
Nos.1.1 to 1.4 herein vehemently submitted that there is no
infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on
the issue of negligence. He further submitted that the eye-
witnesses to the accident had deposed before the learned
Tribunal that the accident in question had occurred owing to
the sole negligence of the driver of the alto car. He further
submitted that though the FIR was lodged by the driver of the
alto car against the rider of the motorcycle (deceased), the
driver of the alto car has not stepped into the witness box. He
further submitted that though the FIR has been lodged
against the rider of the motorcycle (deceased) and the
investigating agency had filed the abated summary against
the rider of the motorcycle (deceased), however, considering
the oral evidence on record, the findings returned by the
learned Tribunal is liable to be sustained. He further
submitted that when there is some contradiction between the
oral evidence and the documentary evidence on record, the
learned Tribunal has to give more weightage to the oral
evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal. In support of
his contentions, learned counsel for the original claimants
relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v.
Chamundeswari & Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 6151 of 2011],
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3344/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
reported in 2021 ACJ 2558. Having placed reliance on the
aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the original claimants
vehemently submitted that the findings returned by the
learned Tribunal is liable to be upheld. Therefore, he
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any
error in passing the impugned judgment and award, as such,
the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the original claimants further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. He
further submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded
compensation under the conventional heads as per 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, as such, there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the present appeal
is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused the material
available on record, it is to be noted that there is no dispute
regarding the factum of accident, manner of occurrence of the
accident, age and occupation of the deceased. The appellant-
Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment
and award on the issue of negligence as well as on the ground
of quantum.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3344/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
8. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the widow
of the deceased, viz., Sushilaben Dahyabhai Parmar has filed
her affidavit at Exh.22, wherein she had stated that the
accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the
driver of the alto car. The said fact has not been disputed by
the appellant - Insurance Company in the cross-examination.
Further, the appellant - insurance company has not examined
the driver of the alto car to rebut the version of the original
claimants. At the same time, it is on record that the FIR came
to be lodged against the rider of the motorcycle (deceased)
and the abated summary has also been filed against the rider
of the motorcycle (deceased). But it is settled proposition of
law that when there is some contradiction between the oral
and documentary evidence, the Tribunal/Court has to give
more weightage to the oral evidence adduced before the
learned Tribunal. At this juncture, it would be profitable to
refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Chamundeshwari (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed as under :-
"........ In view of such evidence on record, there
is no reason to give weightage to the contents
of the First Information Report. If any evidence
before the Tribunal runs contrary to the
contents in the First Information Report, the
evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal
has to be given weightage over the contents of
the First Information Report."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3344/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
9. Thus, considering the material on record, it is evident
that the oral evidence are against the appellant- Insurance
Company, and it emerges from the oral evidence that the
accident in question had occurred owing to the sole
negligence of the driver of the alto car. Therefore, considering
the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the considered
view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in
holding the driver of the alto car solely negligent for causing
the accident.
10. So far as the quantum is concerned, the accident took
place on 22.12.2015. It is not in dispute that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was engaged in agricultural work and
his income was assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.5,000/-
per month. Thus, considering the year of the accident and
having regard to the occupation of the deceased, in my
considered view, the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the
income of the deceased. Further, the compensation awarded
under the conventional heads were determined as per the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), as such, there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgment and award, hence, the impugned
judgment and award is liable to be upheld and is accordingly
upheld.
11. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the learned
Tribunal had not committed any error in awarding a sum of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3344/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
Rs.12,00,861/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation.
12. In view thereof, the captioned appeal stands dismissed
accordingly.
13. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
to the original claimants (deducting deficit Court fee, if any),
after due verification.
14. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the
Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned
Tribunal concerned forthwith.
15. In view of the order passed in the captioned Appeal, the
connected Civil Application would not survive and the same
stands disposed of.
16. Records & Proceedings if any, be sent to the learned
Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
