Advocates:
['SANDIP C SHAH', 'NACHIKET A DAVE', 'NOTICE SERVED', 'SUNIL B PARIKH', 'RULE SERVED']

C/FA/4145/2006 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4145 of 2006

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to

see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the

judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law

as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any

order made thereunder ?

==========================================================

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Versus

BATUKBHAI GANDUBHAI BHARWAD & 3 other(s)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR NACHIKET A DAVE(5308) for the Defendant(s) No. 1

MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3

NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 2

RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 4

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

Date : 19/01/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

Heard Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned advocate for

the appellant, Mr. Nachiket A. Dave, learned

Page 1 of 3

C/FA/4145/2006 JUDGMENT

advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. Sunil B.

Parikh, learned advocate for respondent no.3.

2.

This appeal is directed against the judgment

and award dated 15.4.2006 passed in MACP

no.1804 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing

for the respective parties, as only the short

question as regards liability is raised in

this appeal, further description of facts is

not necessary to be made in this judgment and

order.

4.

The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and

award, has considered the joint and several

liability of the appellant - insurance Company

as well as other insurance Company being

respondent no.3. As far as the quantum is

concerned, there is no dispute and considering

the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and

also considering the manner in which the

accident has occurred, which is quite evident

from reappreciation of the evidence in form of

FIR at Exh.78, this Court is of the opinion

that no interference is called for.

Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India

Page 2 of 3

C/FA/4145/2006 JUDGMENT

Assurance Company Limited, (2015) 9 SCC 273,

the findings arrived at by the Appellate Court

are proper and in accordance with law. The

learned advocates for the appellant –

insurance Company as well as the other

insurance Company have stated at the bar that

the amount has been deposited. Having re-

appreciated the evidence on record and

considering the submissions made by the

learned advocates appearing for the respective

parties, the liability as determined and fixed

by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and

in consonance with the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei

(supra).

5.

The appeal therefore fails and is hereby

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as

to costs. Registry is directed to send the

record and proceedings back to the Tribunal

forthwith.

(R.M.CHHAYA, J)

MRP

Page 3 of 3