IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1144 of 2023 With R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 76 of 2024 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1144 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus VELABHAI KARAMSHIBHAI MAKWANA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR HARDIK P MEHTA(6943) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 13/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal and cross-objection are filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Surat in MACP No.1130/2011, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,91,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on 27.08.2006, when the deceased minor Pushpaben along with her mother, was standing on the side of the road and waiting for a vehicle to go towards Chotila, in the meantime, the original opponent no.1/respondent no.3 herein came by driving his Maruti Fronti Motor Car bearing registration no.GJ-3-DD-3739 in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased minor Pushpaben. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries. She was first taken to Civil Hospital, where the doctor declared her dead. It is also the case of the original claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 8 years and was studying in Class-III. Therefore, the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- came to be filed.

3. On being served, the original opponent no.1 filed the written statement at Exh.22 while the original opponent no.2/insurance company filed its written statement at Exh.33. Both the opponents have denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,91,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant/insurance company challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of involvement of the offending vehicle, while the original claimants have filed the cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. Mr. Hardik P. Mehta, learned counsel appearing in First Appeal No.1144/2023 preferred by the appellant/insurance company submitted that the involvement of the offending vehicle was not proved on record. He further submitted that it was not proved on record that the offending car bearing registration no.GJ-3-DD-3739 was involved in the alleged accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the C-Summary filed by the police after conducting the investigation and thereby stating that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident. He further submitted that despite this fact, the learned Tribunal has held the respondent no.3 herein negligent for causing the accident. Therefore, the finding returned by the learned Tribunal on the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle is not sustainable.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Premal S. Rachh learned Counsel appearing in cross objection preferred by the ori