Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M. CHHAYA, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
KUNJAL JITENDRA JOSHI – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 1850, 1851, 6052 of 2019, 3304, 3305 of 2021, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Section 173 - Negligence - Compensation - [ACCIDENT] - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - [FIR at Exh.67, Panchnama at Exh.68, charge-sheet at Exh.83] - The court found that the accident was a case of contributory negligence of both drivers, attributing 80% negligence to the truck driver and 20% to the Ford Icon car driver. The court also determined that the claimant, a resident of Canada with independent income, was not dependent on the deceased and was entitled to Rs. 50,000 in each claim petition along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The accident occurred when a truck entered an express highway junction, colliding with a Ford Icon car. The claimant, a resident of Canada, sought compensation for the death of his family members in the accident. The Tribunal found contributory negligence of both drivers and awarded compensation to the claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contributory negligence of both drivers, attributing 80% negligence to the truck driver and 20% to the Ford Icon car driver. The court also determined that the claimant, a resident of Canada with independent income, was not dependent on the deceased and was entitled to Rs. 50,000 in each claim petition along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions.
Issues: 1. Contributory negligence of both drivers. 2. Claimant's dependency on the deceased. 3. Entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found contributory negligence of both drivers, attributing 80% negligence to the truck driver and 20% to the Ford Icon car driver. The court also determined that the claimant, a resident of Canada with independent income, was not dependent on the deceased and was entitled to Rs. 50,000 in each claim petition along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions.
Final Decision: The court found contributory negligence of both drivers and determined that the claimant, a resident of Canada with independent income, was not dependent on the deceased and was entitled to Rs. 50,000 in each claim petition along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions.
JUDGMENT :
R.M. CHHAYA, J.
1. All these appeals, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arise out of the same accident and all the original claim petitions were heard together and came to be disposed of by common judgment and award dated 23.1.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad (Rural) and hence, all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. First Appeal No. 1850/19 is filed by Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited (insurer of Ford Icon car bearing registration no. GJ-1 HG-6986) challenging the judgment and award passed in MACP No. 89/07. First Appeal No. 1851/19 is also filed by the same insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed in MACP No. 90/07. First Appeal No. 6052/19 is filed by another insurance Company, namely, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (insurer of truck bearing registration no. GJ-3 V-7066).
3. The facts as narrated in First Appeal No. 1850/19 (arising out of MACP No. 89/07) are taken as basis of this judgment and order.
4. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:
4.2 The original claimant was examined at Exh.49. The original claimant also relied upon the documentary evidences, such as, income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2006-07 at Exh.50, income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2006-07 at Exh.51, FIR at Exh.67, Panchnama at Exh.68, inquest Panchnama of the deceased-Dr. Jitendra Joshi at Exh.69, postmortem report of the deceased-Dr. Jitendra Joshi at Exh.70, death certificate of the deceased-Dr. Jitendra Joshi at Exh.71, Saral Form 2D of the deceased-Dr. Jitendra Joshi at Exh.78, charge-sheet at Exh.83, salary certificate at Exh.53, inquest Panchnama of the deceased-Devyaniben at Exh.75, postmortem report of the deceased-Devyaniben at Exh.76, driving licenses of the deceased-Jaydeep at Mark 7/7, salary certificate of deceased-Jaydeep at Exh.52, inquest Panchnama of the deceased-Jaydeep Exh.72, postmortem report of the deceased-Jaydeep at Exh.73, death certificate of the deceased-Jaydeep at Exh.74, migration certificate of the deceased-Jaydeep at Exh.79, MBA course fee receipt at Mark 60/2. The original opponent no. 3-the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has relied upon the insurance policy of the truck bearing registration no. GJ-3 V-7066 at Exh.87 and the original opponent no. 4-Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited examined Mr. Sunil A. Vyas at Exh.91 and also relied upon the insurance policy of Ford Icon car bearing registration no. GJ-1 HG-6986 at Exh.92.
4.3 The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record and more particularly, the Panchnama at Exh.68 a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
