Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 3060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2552 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2552 of 2021 ================================================================
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Versus CHIRAG MANUBHAI PATEL ================================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ================================================================
CORAM:H ONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 21/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ for short) to assail the order dated 27.11.2019 passed below Exhibit-6 in MACP No.391/2015 whereunder, the MACT (Aux.), Anand has allowed the application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the claimants.
2. I have heard Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned advocate for the appellant.
3. Mr. Raval, learned advocate submits that the trial Court has not considered the fact that the driver of the offending auto-rickshaw did not have license to drive the auto-rickshaw on the date of the accident. He, therefore, submits that in view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability of payment of interim compensation on the appellant-Insurance Company. He further submits that the involvement of the auto-rickshaw in the accident is also doubtful as the accident had happened on 21.08.2013, whereas, the FIR came to be lodged on 02.10.2013 i.e. almost after two months after the occurrence of the accident without mentioning the registration number of the offending auto-rickshaw. It is his submission that Punchnama of the place of accident also does not refer to the presence of insured vehicle. He, therefore, submits that the Tribunal has allowed Section 140 application without considering all these important aspects. He, therefore, urges that the appeal requires consideration.
4. The order complained in this appeal is an order under Section 140 of the M.V. Act on the ground of “No False Liability”.
5. It is a settled proposition of law that while awarding the compensation under Section 140, full-fledged trial is not contemplated. At this interim stage, the tribunal has to ascertain the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident on the basis of documents such as FIR, Punchnama of place of accident, Injury Certificate/P.M. Note. It is thus eminently clear that observations made for mulct liability to pay compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act are tentative made for the purpose of disposal of the application.
6. The contentions and issues raised by Mr. Raval, learned advocate can overwhelmed be raised as the time of trial of main Claim Petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertained this appeal with a clarification that it shall be open for the appellant-Insurance Company to raise the contentions of non involvement of the offending auto- rickshaw and the valid license by the driver of the auto- rickshaw in the proceedings of Claim Petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
8. If the contentions which has raised in the present appeal, raised at the time of proceedings of 166 of the M.V. Act of the Claim Petition the tribunal shall decide the same by assigning reasons.
9. In view of the above, appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of with aforesaid direction.
10. Civil Application stands disposed of.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J)
