Back
2019 Supreme(Guj) 1130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J. SHASTRI, J.
Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kloeckner Desma Machinery Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
R/Civil Revision Application No. 403 of 2016
Decided On : 11-10-2019
For the Appellant :S.N. Soparkar, Senior Advocate, Bijal Chhatrapati and Tabish Samdani, Advocates for J. Sagar Associates
For the Respondents: J.F. Mehta and Zubin F. Bharda
Point of Law: Section 5 of the Limitation Act is apparently held to be not applicable in the matter of preferring a suit whereas here it is not the case that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is the only provision which stated to have been taken in aid by the plaintiff, but has specifically resorted to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and as such also, the averments contained are not permitted the Court to apply this ratio as a straitjacket formula.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 115- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 175 -Civil Revision- Accident claim –Claim of damages - whether bar of Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to the present suit is a question which will have to be examined at length at an appropriate stage. Resultantly, no case is made out
Facts of the Case:
Original defendant No. 1 is that present respondent No. 1 - company i.e. M/s. Kloeckner Desma Machinery Private Limited had purchased a Mercedes Benz car from respondent No. 3 who was, at the relevant point of time, Authorized Dealer of the present petitioner. The respondent No. 2 i.e. Mahendrabhai Patel is a Managing Director of respondent No. 1 - company, who purchased the Car. As per the averments, contained in the plaint, on 02.06.2007, Manishbhai, the son of respondent No. 2 - Mahendrabhai was driving the Mercedes Benz car in question, accompanied by two other occupants, and were going to play golf at Kensville Golf Club, Gandhinagar early in the morning at 6.30 am., the said Mercedes Benz car was stated to be driven at the speed of 140 Kms. per hours. However, near Uvarsad cross road on Sarkhej - Gandhinagar Highway, one Jeep coming from right side dashed with Manishbhai's Mercedes Benz car on the rear part of its right side, resultantly, leading to an accident and also the sad demise of said Manishbhai subsequently. However, two other occupants in the car could survive in the said accident, whereas, Manishbhai, who died, a son of respondent No. 2 herein, has left behind his wife Brinda and a minor son.
Finding of the Court:
High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent factual findings while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is settled law that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to cases of illegal or irregular exercise by the subordinate courts. Under Section 115 of the CPC, it is not open for the High Court to correct errors of facts or law unless they go to root of the issue of jurisdiction. In the facts on hand, the Courts below have passed reasoned orders well within the jurisdiction conferred upon them. We arrive at the conclusion that the High Court committed error in interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial court
Result: Revision dismissed
JUDGMENT :
A.J. Shastri, J.
1. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:
"7. (A) to call for the record and proceedings of Suit No. 411 of 2011 pending in the Ahmedabad City Civil Court at Ahmedabad and more particularly Application dated 26.08.2013 at Exhibit 56 and quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 07.05.2016 passed below the said Application dated 26.08.2013 at Exhibit 56 and allow the same.
(B) to stay pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Civil Revision Application further proceedings of Suit No. 411 of 2011 pending in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad;
(C) to provide for the costs of the present Civil Revision Application, and
(D) to grant such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The case of the petitioner - original defendant No. 1 is that present respondent No. 1 - company i.e. M/s. Kloeckner Desma Machinery Private Limited had purchased a Mercedes Benz car on 16.03.2007 from respondent No. 3 who was, at the relevant point of time, Authorized Dealer of the present petitioner. The respondent No. 2 i.e. Mahendrabhai Patel is a Managing Director of respondent No. 1 - company, who purchased the Car. As per the averments, contained in the plaint, on 02.06.2007, Manishbhai, the son of respondent No. 2 - Mahendrabhai was driving the Mercedes Benz car in question, accompanied by two other occupants, and were going to play golf at Kensville Golf Club, Gandhinagar early in the morning at 6.30 am., the said Mercedes Benz car was stated to be driven at the speed of 140 Kms. per hours. However, near Uvarsad cross road on Sarkhej - Gandhinagar Highway, one Jeep coming from right side dashed with Manishbhai's Mercedes Benz car on the rear part of its right side, resultantly, leading to an accident and also the sad demise of said Manishbhai subsequently. However, two other occupants in the car could survive in the said accident, whereas, Manishbhai, who died, a son of respondent No. 2 herein, has left behind his wife Brinda and a minor son.
2.1. On account of such accident, the widow and the minor child of late Manishbhai filed a Motor Accident Claims Petition bearing MACP No. 2048 of 2008 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the driver of the offending Jeep, its owner and its Insurance Company to the extent of claim of Rs. 6,27,50,000/- substantially, on the premise that driver of the Jeep vehicle was driving in a rash and negligent manner which caused accident, in which, the said Manishbhai passed away. It is the case of the petitioner that simultaneously as per the averments in the plaint itself and the documents produced alongwith, it appears that respondents No. 1 and 2 herein alongwith the wife of respondent No. 2, filed a Consumer Complaint in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi bearing Consumer Complaint No. 146 of 2009 seeking prayer to claim Rs. 44 crores to be paid by way of compensation and damages arising out of a car accident, causing death of Manishbhai, while he was driving a defective car manufactured by present petitioner and sold by respondent No. 3, being Authorized Dealer. The said Consumer Complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi was filed against the petitioner whereas widow and minor child of deceased Manishbhai claimed ignorance about such complaint being filed.
2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that admittedly the Insurance Company has settled the claim towards the accidental damage caused to the Mercedes Benz cars, which admission is reflecting in paragraph No. 22 of the plaint, wherein, the claim towards the accidental damage caused to the car is settled by Tata AIG Insurance Company. Simultaneously, widow as well as minor child of late Manishbhai, pending aforesaid Consumer Complaint No. 14
