UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTDversusRAJENDRASINH PRAVINSINH VALA

      C/FA/1085/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1085 of 2022
                                   With
                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
========================================================
             Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

========================================================
               THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                                    Versus
          BHAVNABEN MEHULBHAI JANI(WIFE OF DECD.) & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 8
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6,7
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
=======================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 07/01/2026
                         COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(1)     Since both these appeals are arising out of the same accident
and challenge is made to the common judgment and decree passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, they are being heard together
and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2)     Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
and award dated 23.11.2021 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rajkot, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short),


                                   Page 1 of 6
      C/FA/1085/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026




in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.972/2015, the appellants –
Insurance Companies have preferred present appeals under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act" for short) as the Tribunal has been pleased to hold both the
drivers of offending vehicle equally liable for the accident.

(3)     Heard Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned Advocate for the appellant –
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in First Appeal No.1085/2022 and
Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned counsel for the appellant – United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. in First Appeal No.1340/2022. Mr. Hemal Shah,
learned counsel for the claimants has remained absent. Though
served, none appears for respondent Nos.6 and 7. Perused the original
record and proceedings.

(4)     It is the case of the claimants that on 12.06.2015, the deceased
was going as a passenger in luxury bus bearing No.GJ-10-W-9585 and
when the bus reached near the place of accident, collided with one
truck bearing No.GJ-23-V-2544 from back side. As a result, the
deceased received fatal injuries. Therefore, the claimants have filed
MAC Petitions seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence
produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly
allowed both the claim petitions.

(5)     Mr. Rathin Raval, learned counsel for The New India Assurance
Co. Ltd.in First Appeal No.1085 of 2022, has submitted that the
Tribunal committed a grave error in saddling the insurance company
with 50% liability. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have held
that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the
stationary truck parked on the service road; that the truck was lying
unattended without any signals or other precautionary measures at



                                 Page 2 of 6
      C/FA/1085/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026




about 03:30 hours during the night. There was no negligence on the
part of the luxury bus. However, the Tribunal erred in assessing 50%
negligence on the part of the luxury bus in causing the accident. It is
further submitted that the driver of the bus has deposed that the
truck was parked on the left side of the road without any parking
reflectors, signals, or indicators, and therefore, the accident occurred
due to the sole negligence of the driver of the stationary truck. The
driver of the truck failed to observe trafÏc rules and regulations, more
particularly Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 190 of the
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as he had abandoned the truck without
any reflectors or safety measures, that too at 03:30 hours in mid-night
on a highway road. Therefore, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme         Court   in   National    Insurance   Company         Ltd.     v.
Chamundeshwari Devi, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 439, it is submitted
that the evidence led before the Tribunal is required to be considered
rather than placing reliance solely upon the police papers. Hence, Mr.
Raval, learned counsel for the appellant - The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. has requested that the appeal be allowed as prayed for.


(6)     Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned counsel for the appellant in First
Appeal No.1340 of 2022, has submitted that the driver of the luxury
bus was solely negligent in causing the accident. It is contended that,
at the time of the accident, the truck was parked on the extreme left
side of the service road and, upon consideration of the panchnama
produced on record, it clearly emerges that the accident might have
occurred while the driver of the luxury bus was overtaking another
vehicle, which is impermissible during night hours, particularly when
the bus was carrying passengers. It is further submitted that the driver
of the luxury bus was required to take due care while overtaking other



                                  Page 3 of 6
      C/FA/1085/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026




vehicles and there was no justification for driving the bus on the
extreme left side of the road. On perusal of the panchnama and the
damage caused to the truck, it appears that the truck was stationed
on the left side of the service road and was dragged for about 40 feet,
and the left side of the luxury bus was completely damaged up to
three seats. Hence, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned counsel has
requested that the driver of the luxury bus be held 100% negligent in
causing the accident.


(7)     Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that both
vehicles are shifting 100 % blame to each other for causing the
accident. Therefore, the only issue under challenge in these appeals is
with regard to negligence. This Court has examined the evidence
produced on record concerning the apportionment of negligence
between the two vehicles.

(8)     In First Appeal No.1085 of 2022, the appellant – The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. examined the driver of the luxury bus - Jayendra
Vadher at Exh.56, wherein, he has deposed that he was driving the bus
at a moderate speed while observing trafÏc rules, and that the truck
was lying on the road during night hours without any reflector or
precautionary measures on the express highway, due to which the
accident occurred only because of carelessness on part of the truck
driver. During cross-examination, it has established that a complaint in
respect of the accident was registered against the said witness, who is
the bus driver, and that he had disclosed these facts for the first time
in his afÏdavit before the Tribunal. On the basis of the charge-sheet as
well as the panchnama produced on record, the Tribunal considered
the issue of negligence in light of the evidence adduced. The


                                Page 4 of 6
      C/FA/1085/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026




panchnama reveals that the accident occurred at about 03:30 hours
during the night on an express highway, where a truck bearing
registration No. GJ-23-V-2544 was parked on the service road near an
iron barrier. The truck was found damaged on the rear portion on the
driver side, and due to the impact, the barrier on the service road was
also damaged up to 40 feet. An iron sheet of the luxury bus was found
entangled in the rear tyre of the truck. Further, the left side of the
luxury bus was damaged up to three seats. The truck was found
stationed on the extreme left side of the service road, and the rear
portion of the truck was damaged. It was also found that the truck was
parked without any reflector or indicator and without observing Rules
190 and 191 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Considering the nature of
damage to the bus as well as the contents of the panchnama, it
appears that the driver of the luxury bus had no reason to drive such a
heavy vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the left side of the
service road, particularly during late night hours. At the same time,
while driving a bus during late night hours and that too while carrying
passengers, the driver of the luxury bus was required to exercise a
higher degree and standard of care.


(9)     Further, as per Section 121 of MV Act, the driver of the vehicle
shall make such signals on such occasions and as per Section 122, no
person incharge of the motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle
or any truck to be abandoned or to remain at rest at any public place
which is likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to
the other users of road or the public place. Under Sections 126 and
127(2) of the MV Act, driver of stationary vehicle is duty bound to
immediately remove such vehicle from the public place by towing
service or try to remove the obstruction as per Regulation 15 of Rules



                                 Page 5 of 6
     C/FA/1085/2022                                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 07/01/2026




of Road Regulations of 1989 which was also prevailing on the date of
the incident and every driver of motor vehicle shall park the vehicle in
such a way that does not cause or is not likely to cause
danger/obstruction or any undue inconvenience to the other road
users and it cast the duty on the driver of the vehicle that vehicle shall
not be parked at or near the road crossing or on the main road.

(10) In the case on hand, the driver of the bus failed to take
reasonable care to avoid an unexpected situation. Considering the
aforesaid facts, the Tribunal, taking into account the size of the
vehicle as well as the fact that the truck was parked without displaying
or reflecting any indicator and in violation of Rules 190 and 191 of the
Motor Vehicles Rules, held the stationary vehicle also liable to the
extent of 50% for causing or contributing to the accident. In such
facts, as both the vehicles are equally responsible for causing the
accident, the Tribunal has rightly held both vehicles equally liable, and
the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are just and proper and not
committed any error.

(11) For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals fail and are hereby
dismissed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.


                                                                     (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)



SUCHIT

  Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
  Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/01/2026 11:17:54




                                                Page 6 of 6