IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3765 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

DINESHKUMAR BABABHAI PRAJAPATI Versus RAVAL KANJIBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR AMIT C NANAVATI(1384) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,4 MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 6,9 MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 7 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,5 SERVED BY GOVERNMENT GAZETTE for the Defendant(s) No. 8 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 09/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 01.05.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Dhrangadhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.463 of 1998, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,78,000/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal is that on 24.12.1993, the claimant was travelling in a truck bearing registration No.GTY-7136 as a cleaner on the said truck. While they were returning after unloading the lignite from Ahmedabad to Kachchh, at about 4:15 O’ clock, when they reached at the place of accident, in the meantime the truck bearing registration No.GQD-4189 which was going ahead of the said truck, applied the brakes suddenly and in the meantime a truck bearing registration No.GJ-3-T-0912 came in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, the truck bearing registration No.GTY-7136 dashed with the truck bearing registration No.GQD-4189. It has been further averred that the accident occurred owing to the composite negligence of all 3 vehicles. It has been further averred that at the time of accident, claimant was aged about 24 years and he was working as a cleaner on the one of the offending truck thereby earning a sum of Rs.2,400/- as a salary. Therefore, he filed the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. The respondent No.2 & 4 were deleted from the array of the parties. On being served, the respondent No.1, 3 & 5 chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. The respondent No.6 and 9- Insurance Company filed the written statement at Exh-33 & 59 respectively thereby denying the contents of the claim petition in toto and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for determination:-

“1. Whether it is proved that the applicant sustained injuries because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?

2. What amount the applicant is entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?

3. What order?”

5. In order to prove his claim, the original claimant/appellant has led following oral as well as documentary evidence on record.

6. The respondents- herein have not led any oral as well as documentary evidence.

7. Having considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,78,000/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimant/appellant has preferred the captioned appeal.

9. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

10. Mr. Amit C. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the ori