IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4107 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

ASHABA PRAVINSINH RATHOD & ORS.

Versus JOGRAJIYA DEVRAJBHAI MEGANBHAI & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR DHAWAN M JAYSWAL(5878) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 18/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main.) Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.29 of 2016.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. The brief facts of the claim petition are that on 28.06.2015, the deceased, Pravinsinh Bavalbhai Rathod, was travelling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle No. GJ-13-DD-4470, which was being driven by opponent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed. At about 7:00 p.m., near the dispensary of Dr. Satapara at Thangadh, opponent No.1 suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which the deceased fell from the motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed thereto. The applicants contend that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of opponent No.1. They further claim that, due to the untimely death of the deceased, they have suffered severe financial loss on account of dependency, incurred funeral expenses, and sustained loss of estate and loss of expectation of life. Accordingly, the applicants have claimed compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- from all the opponents jointly and severally.

4. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in appreciating the evidence on record. The deceased was travelling as a pillion rider, and the motorcycle was being driven by opponent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to sudden application of brakes, the deceased fell from the motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries, and ultimately succumbed thereto. The appellants incurred substantial expenses towards medical treatment and funeral rites. The deceased was 36 years of age at the time of the accident and was serving as a Police Constable in the Police Department. Despite the fact that the death occurred due to the accident, the learned Tribunal erroneously concluded that the deceased died of a heart attack by relying upon oral evidence, while completely ignoring the medical papers, post-mortem report, and other documentary evidence on record. The post- mortem report clearly records the cause of death as intracerebral haemorrhage and cardio-respiratory arrest due to head injury. Even the medical witnesses, namely Dr. Ashit Rampati and Dr. . Binduben Mukdal, who examined the deceased, have categorically stated that the cause of death was haemorrhage resulting from head injury. It was further submitted that when the appellants approached the Life Insurance Company for insurance benefits, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the death was accidental. Thus, the Tribunal failed to consider this crucial aspect as well. In view of the aforesaid facts and evidence, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent–insurance company opposed the appeal and filed written submissions on behalf of the respondent company. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and that the claim petition itself is not maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as no element of rash or negligent driving has been established. The learned advocate relied upon the accidental d