NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTDversusRAMILABEN WD/O ISHWARSINH MAKWANA

      C/FA/2177/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2177 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

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

              Approved for Reporting              Yes           No

==============================================
                  NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                               Versus
          RAMILABEN WD/O ISHWARSINH MAKWANA & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AMIT C NANAVATI(1384) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. HARDIK K CHOKSI(9964) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6
==============================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 04/02/2026

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1)      Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award

         dated 03.02.2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

         (Main) Panchmahals at Godhra (who shall hereinafter be

         referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim

         Petition No.207 of 2014, the appellant – opponent no.3 therein –

         National Insurance Company Ltd., has preferred the present

         appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which

         shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).




                                   Page 1 of 6
     C/FA/2177/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




2)     Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. C. Thomas, for the appellant,

        learned Advocate Mr. A. C. Nanavati, for the respondent nos.1 to

        4 and learned Advocate Mr. H. K. Choksi for the respondent

        nos.5 and 6. Perused the original record and proceedings.


3)     It is the case of the original claimants – respondent nos.1 to 4

        herein, that on 14.01.2014 the deceased Ishwarsinh was going

        by foot at side of the road from Godhra to Shahera. When he

        was passing from the place of accident, the opponent no.1 riding

        motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-S-9000 in rash and negligent

        manner and dashed with the deceased. Resultantly the deceased

        succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claimants had filed

        MAC Petition    seeking   compensation, wherein, the         learned

        Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has

        partly allowed the claim petition.


4)     The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that

        initially the complaint was filed against unknown vehicle and

        registration number of vehicle was given subsequently. The

        father-in-law of the deceased appeared and his vehicle is

        involved and planted subsequently though FSL Report clearly

        reveals that there were break marks of four wheeler though two

        wheeler is produced and on the ground of involvement the

        present appeal is filed and submitted that the learned Tribunal




                                  Page 2 of 6
     C/FA/2177/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




        has committed error in considering the aforesaid vehicle. He has

        further submitted that the said vehicle at all is not involved and

        hence requested to exonerate the Insurance Company by

        allowing the present appeal.


5)     Learned Advocate for the respondents have submitted that the

        learned Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the

        impugned      judgment   and   after    appreciating     the    evidence

        produced on record awarded proper compensation. Hence, they

        have requested to dismiss the present appeal.


6)     Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and going

        through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has

        considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in

        the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC

        2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in

        2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on

        preponderance of probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered

        the affidavit at Exhibit 28 wherein all the facts of the accident

        have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the

        claim petition. The learned Tribunal has perused the complaint

        at Exhibit 32, panchnama at Exhibit 33, Inquest Panchnama at

        Exhibit 34, PM Report at Exhibit 35, Vehicle Panchnama at

        Exhibit 36, statement of owner of vehicle at Exhibit 37, and after

        perusing the evidence the learned Tribunal came to the


                                  Page 3 of 6
     C/FA/2177/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




        conclusion that due to negligence of the driver of motorcycle the

        alleged incident took place.


7)     The present appeal is filed on the ground of involvement of the

        vehicle, it is true that complaint was filed against unknown

        vehicle and after investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed

        against the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-S-9000.

        The panchnama at Exhibit 36 reveals involvement of the said

        vehicle and further the Criminal Case was conducted against the

        said opponent no.1 – respondent no.5 herein and specific

        defence was raised by the Insurance Company that the vehicle

        was not involved as complaint was registered against unknown

        vehicle. The panchnama also reveals that the owner of the

        vehicle - Ratansinh has produced motorcycle before the police

        and his statement was recorded by the police, wherein, he has

        stated that on 14.01.2014, his friend Dalpatbhai Shivabhai came

        to his home and asked him to give motorcycle therefore he gave

        his motorcycle to him. Then at about 10 O’clock at night he

        came to know hearsay that one person of Umarpur Village, met

        with an accident near village Khandiya Bahi crossing. The person

        who died during the accident namely Ishwarbhai Balvantbhai

        was also of Umarpur village. On 25.01.2014, Dalpatbhai

        Shivabhai has informed him that when I was going with your

        motorcycle and he was driving the motorcycle in full speed and



                                  Page 4 of 6
     C/FA/2177/2022                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




        at that time the accident occurred and he dashed one person

        who was going by food on road.

8)     Relying on the aforesaid fact and appreciating the evidence it

        reveals that the owner of the vehicle has produced the vehicle

        before the police on his own and he has accepted the

        involvement of the vehicle. Once the involvement of the vehicle

        is accepted by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle then

        in absence of any material question does not arise to disbelieve

        the said version. Even the owner of the vehicle appeared before

        the Criminal Court and trial was proceeded against him. In view

        of above merely filing of the complaint against unknown vehicle

        is not a ground to overturn the findings of the Tribunal. The

        Hon’ble       Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of   Janabai     Wd/o

        Dinkarrao       Ghorpade    & Ors.,        Vs Ms.      ICICI   Lambord

        Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)

        666, held in para 10 as under:

                “We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a
                criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application
                under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which
                is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the
                veracity of the statement of appellant No.1 who suffered
                injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has
                to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and
                not on the basis of evidence which should have been or
                could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the
                entire approach of the High Court is clearly not
                sustainable.”




                                    Page 5 of 6
      C/FA/2177/2022                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




9)        In view of above, the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated

          the evidence as strict proof of pleadings is not required based on

          preponderance                 of     probabilities           and       res      ipsa       loquitur         the

          negligence and involvement of the vehicle is accepted and

          reasons assigned by the Tribunal qua issue no.1 is proper and

          does not call for interference. Hence, the arguments canvassed

          by the learned Advocate for the appellant is not accepted.

10)       The present appeal is filed on the ground of involvement of the

          vehicle and as the involvement is proved, the findings of the

          Tribunal qua factum of death, quantum and liability does not call

          for any interference and not required to be disturbed and hence

          no interference is required with the judgment and award dated

          03.02.2022, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims

          Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra, in MAC Petition No.207

          of 2014.

11)       Record and proceedings (if any) be remitted back to the

          concerned Tribunal forthwith.

12)       Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.




                                                                             (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)


ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/02/2026 18:21:08




                                                      Page 6 of 6