Gujarat High Court
Milan Quarry Works vs Harsang Madhiya Bhabhor (Vasava) on 23 March, 2018
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
C/FA/2619/2007 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2619 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MILAN QUARRY WORKS
Versus
HARSANG MADHIYA BHABHOR (VASAVA)
==========================================================
Appearance:
(MR PV NANAVATI)(509) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
(MR JAGDISH H MEHTA)(2361) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
MR PRASHANT MANKAD(2189) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 23/03/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order Page 1 of 4 C/FA/2619/2007 JUDGMENT passed by the learned MACP (Aux.), Kachchh at Bhuj,(hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) in MACP No. 283 of 1996, by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said Claim Petition and has awarded total sum of Rs.1,80,000/ (one lakhs eighty thousand) towards compensation for death of the deceased who at that relevant time of the accident was aged 13 years, the owner of the dumper involved in the accident, has preferred the present First Appeal.
2. Heard Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant no.1 and Shri H.G.Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company of the Dumper, respondent no.3.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the deceased, who at the relevant time of incident was standing at the road side, died in the vehicular accident. It was the case on behalf of the original claimant father of the deceased that when the deceased was standing on the road side, the roller dashed the deceased and thereafter, dumper ran over the deceased. That the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that first the roller dashed the deceased and thereafter, the dumper which was coming from behind the roller, ran over the deceased, and therefore, it was held that the dumper was also involved in the accident, and therefore, the deceased was injured. The learned Tribunal has held the insurance company Page 2 of 4 C/FA/2619/2007 JUDGMENT also liable to pay the compensation.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation, the owner of the dumper has preferred the First Appeal.
4. Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstance of the case, learned Tribunal has held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that deceased died because of the fact that the roller ran over the deceased after it dashed the deceased who was standing on the road side and as the roller was not involved in the accident, the learned Tribunal ought not to have held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation.
5. However, considering the findings recorded by learned Tribunal and considering the contents of the FIR which was given by father of the deceased and the deposition of the father of deceased, it appears that the deceased was standing on the road side and the roller dashed the deceased and thereafter, the dumper which was coming from behind the roller, ran over the deceased. Thus, the involvement of the dumper has been established and proved. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that Page 3 of 4 C/FA/2619/2007 JUDGMENT dumper was also involved in the incident and in fact the deceased died because of the fact that dumper ran over the deceased after the roller dashed the deceased, and therefore, it cannot be said that learned Tribunal has committed any error which calls the interference of this Court. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse.
6. In view of the above, the present Appeal is required to be dismiss and is accordingly dismissed. No cost as to cost.
(M.R. SHAH, J) Manshi Page 4 of 4