2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MCT
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. – Appellant
Versus
UGABHAI BHACHUBHAI RABARI – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1321 of 2016 With R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 43 of 2017 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1321 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI ==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.
Versus UGABHAI BHACHUBHAI RABARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal and cross objections have been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.02.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gandhidham at Kachchh in M.A.C.P. No. 30 of 2001, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,51,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty-One Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal and cross objections are summarized as under:-
i. On 23.06.2000 at about 10:00 hours, the original claimant was going on his Luna bearing Registration No. GJ-12-S-962. When he reached near Swaminarayan Mandir at Gandhidham, opponent No.1 came by driving scooter bearing Registration No. GJ-12-C-5356 in a rash and negligent manner at excessive speed and dashed with the Luna of the original claimant, thereby causing the accident.
ii. It is the case of the original claimant before the learned Tribunal that in the said vehicular accident, the original claimant sustained serious injuries on his left leg, as such, his left leg was amputated above the knee. It is also the case of the claimant before the learned Tribunal that at the time of accident, he was working as a Chowkidhar and was earning salary of Rs.7,049/-
per month.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, Original opponent No.3/appellant herein – United India Insurance Company Company filed its Written Statement at Exh.26, thereby denying the averments made in the Claim Petition in toto, and pleaded that the accident occurred owing to the contributory negligence of the original claimant, and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv.Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues at Exh.25:-
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he received injuries on date 23/06/2000 by rash and negligent Act of the driver of Scooter No.GH-12-C-5356 i.e., opponent No.1 during his employment with opponent No.2 ?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for compensation from the opponents or any of them ? If yes, what amount and from whom ?
3. What award ?
v. In order to prove his case, the original claimant led oral as well as documentary evidence, such as:-
vi. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,51,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty-One Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation.
vii. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant - Insurance Company has preferred the captioned appeal on the ground of quantum and original claimant has preferred the cross objections on the ground of quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. R. G. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the original claimant has no