Gujarat High Court
Rakeshbhai Kiritbhai Patel vs Sanjaybhai Javaharbhai Patel on 5 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3073/2012 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3073 of 2012
==========================================================
RAKESHBHAI KIRITBHAI PATEL
Versus
SANJAYBHAI JAVAHARBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR A R DWIVEDI(11319) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 20.4.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1014 of 2005.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition only on the ground delay in filing the FIR. He would further submit that said issue is also not raised by the insurance company in written statement and yet, the learned Tribunal in its own, has taken up the stance to dismiss the claim petition on the ground that the FIR is filed belatedly.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. VC Thomas submits to pass necessary orders.
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:31:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3073/2012 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined
4. At the outset, I may refer to para 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment and award, which reads as under:-
"11. Rakeslibhai Kiritbhai Patel has been examined as a witness at Exh.17. He is an injured and claimant of the present claim petition. Ile deposes as per the claim petition. As per his deposition the driver of the Maruti Ford No: GJ-6-AA-9300 was rash and negligent in driving of his vehicle. It is noting able here, that the victim has not given stated number of vehicle to the doctor. Victim or Doctor have not informed about the incident to the Police. Why victim or doctor have not informed to the Police ? After five months of the alleged accident the victim has filed the complaint. Why the victim has not filed the complaint immediately? In regards no explanation have mentioned in the claim petition or in his affidavit (Exh.17).
12. The claimant has mentioned cause of delay, in the complaint hut considering the circumstances, stated reasons of delay are not believable. In complaint the claimant has mentioned that the driver of the vehicle has said to him, that he is come soon with money but he is not returned, therefore he has filed the complaint. It is noting able here, that if driver of the said vehicle is not returned then Why he or his friends or relatives or doctor have not informed immediately to the Police? Why they waited up to five months? In regards the claimant is silent. Therefore involvement of the said number of vehicle is doubtful. The claimant has to prove stated involvement of the vehicle. Merely filing of charge sheet is not sufficient to prove involvement of said vehicle."
5. It is trite to note that in the present case, not only the FIR was filed, but charge sheet was also filed, which prima facie indicates involvement of the vehicle. But, unfortunately, the learned Tribunal lost sight to these very facts. The learned Tribunal was required to take into consideration decision of the Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:31:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3073/2012 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined Hon'ble Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Velu and another rendered in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.32138 of 2018 as well as in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajani Sahoo & Ors. rendered in SLP No.29302 of 2019. Without entering into merits of this case, I find reason to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for taking decision afresh.
6. In view of above, present First Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside. MACP No. 1014 of 2015 is restored to its original proceedings.
6.1 The learned Tribunal is directed to issue notice to the claimant as well as to the respondents and to proceed further to decide the petition on its own merits without being influenced by its earlier order, as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
6.2 Both the parties are at liberty to lead fresh evidence, if they so desire.
6.3 Parties shall remain present before the learned Tribunal on 12.3.2025.
6.4 R & P, if any, to be sent back to the concerned Court immediately preferably on or before 12.3.2025.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:31:42 IST 2025