IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4374 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus ARJUNBHAI TEJARAM CHAUDHARI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 4 MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 4 MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 11/11/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT [1.0] The National Insurance Company Limited (Original Opponent No.6) has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved and disastisfied with the judgment and award dated 17th July, 2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad City in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.37 of 2012 against the opponent.

[2.0] It is pertinent to note that opponent No.4 – Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is the insurance company of vehicle being Truck No.GJ-4X-6257 involved in the accident while present appellant – original opponent No.6 is the insurance company of the Truck Trailer No.GJ-18X-9523.

[3.0] The case before the Tribunal was that the alleged accident took place on 29^th July, 2011 at 8:30 P.M. while the Truck Trailer No.GJ-18X- 9523 was transporting the railway tracks towards Bagodara and at that time, the front wheel of the said vehicle got punctured and while the cleaner of the said Truck Trailer (hereinafter referred to as “stationary truck”) was replacing the tire, he sustained grievous hurt as, at that time, Truck No.GJ-4X-6257 dashed the said stationary truck from behind and in connection with the aforesaid accident, FIR being I- CR No.47 of 2011 came to be registered with the Bagodara Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural).

[4.0] The injured cleaner preferred claim petition being MACP No.37 of 2012 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”). After recording the evidence and giving an opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.12,16,280/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of claim petition to the claimant and fixed negligence of stationary truck at 75%

(opponent No.6) and 25% of Truck No.GJ-4X-6257 (opponent No.4).

[5.0] The present appellant – original opponent No.6 has assailed the judgement and award passed by the learned Tribunal insofar as it holds opponent No.6 to be negligent to the extent of 75% mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence and material produced on record and not properly appreciated the chargesheet and the oral evidence and committed an error in holding the driver of stationary truck to be negligent to the extent of 75% in the alleged accident. Further, the injured claimant who was a cleaner on the said insured stationary truck was an eye witness who has clearly deposed that the reflectors/indicators of the stationary truck were on, though the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not accepting the said evidence and completely ignored the evidence including the cross-examination of the said witness and held the driver of stationary truck to be 75% negligent. Further, there was sufficient space and width on the road for another vehicle to easily pass through and the stationary truck was parked on the extreme left side edge of the road. Hence, due to negligence on the part of another vehicle being Truck No.GJ-4X-6257, alleged accident took place and chargesheet and F.I.R. are also filed against the