Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd vs Kaljibhai Janabhai Rathva & on 22 January, 2014

Author: Harsha Devani

Bench: Harsha Devani

                C/FA/3457/2013                             ORDER




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          FIRST APPEAL NO.3457 of 2013
                                     With
                          FIRST APPEAL NO.3458 of 2013

     =============================================
                 IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
                KALJIBHAI JANABHAI RATHVA & 1....Defendant(s)
     =============================================
     Appearance:
     MR SUNIL PARIKH, ADVOCATE for MR AJAY R MEHTA, ADVOCATE for
     the Appellant(s) No.1
     =============================================

               CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI


                                   Date : 22/01/2014


                                 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate for Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant in each appeal has invited the attention of the court to the deposition of the Investigating Officer who was examined on behalf of the insurance company at Exh.53 to point out that the driver of the offending vehicle had been chargesheeted for driving the vehicle without any licence. Referring to the chargesheet, it was pointed out that the age of the driver was 19 years and that under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no person under the age of 20 years is permitted to drive a transport vehicle in a public place. It was submitted that the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle and as such, apart from the fact that the driver did not have a licence, even otherwise, he was not competent to drive a transport vehicle.

Page 1 of 2

FIRST APPEAL/3457/2013 25/06/2014 10:58:17 AM C/FA/3457/2013 ORDER

2. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant, the court is of the view that the matters require consideration, hence, admit.

( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki Page 2 of 2 FIRST APPEAL/3457/2013 25/06/2014 10:58:17 AM