IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 101 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-

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

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

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

CHANDRIKABEN WD/O. NARANBHAI NANJIBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus RATHOD AMRUTJI MOHANJI ================================================================

Appearance:

MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6 M S BHADKI(8665) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 05/09/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants (the widow, the children and parents of the deceased) have challenged the judgment and award dated 07.02.2020 passed by the learned 3^rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Deesa, Banaskantha in M.A.C.P. No.2081 of 2009 on the ground that the claim petition came to be dismissed qua the respondent No.1.

2. The facts of the case are that on 01.01.2003, the deceased Naranbhai with the respondent No.2 was traveling in a Jeep bearing Registration No.GJ-8F- 1057 with other family members and had boarded the jeep to reach Junagadh from Deodar. At that time on Santalpur – Aadesar road near Garaab village at around 8.00 am, the respondent No.1 who was driving the M.V. Jeep in a rash and negligent manner and with excessive speed dashed with the jeep because of which the jeep turned turtle as the driver lost control over the steering vehicle which led to the accident. Naranbhai suffered serious / grievous injuries and thereafter, died on the spot.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellants Mr. R.K. Mansuri has submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in error in recording certain facts which were never disputed, where there has been no denial about the identity of the owner of the vehicle nor about the vehicle being involved in the accident. The claimants had to suffer since they could not get timely justice. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal had rejected the claim petition observing that neither the actual owner of the vehicle involved in the impugned accident is indemnified nor the offending vehicle is established beyond doubt by the appellants and thus, the learned Tribunal laying the burden concluded that the applicants have failed to prove that the injured received injuries due to the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the vehicle of the respondent No.2 was involved in the accident. The said respondent No.2 had purchased the Black coloured Spacio Tata Jeep from Saraswati Auto Line Ltd., Ahmedabad on 12.03.2003. In the order of purchase, it was noted that Hasmukhlal Harilal Thakkar obtained a loan from Tata Finance Limited. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that Hasmukhlal Harilal Thakkar is the same person known as Hasmukh Harilal Rajde as reflected in the R.C. Book. To corroborate the same, Mr. Mansuri submits that the PAN Card and Income Tax with photo identity of respondent No.2 and the Aadhar Card reflects the fact where the respondent No.2 is also known as Hasmukhlal Harilal Rajde. It is also submitted that as per the Affidavit of the respondent No.2, executed on 02.06.2020 which is supported with a copy of PAN Card and Aadhar Card has noted that there are of the Thakkar Community and their sub-community is Rajde and therefore, in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document