MEGHVILAL NARAYANLAL SHARMAversusASUBA JASWANTSINH ZALA

    C/FA/3942/2023                              JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3942 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes      No
                                                      √
==========================================================
                 MEGHVILAL NARAYANLAL SHARMA
                               Versus
                 ASUBA JASWANTSINH ZALA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 19/01/2026
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellant–original respondent
No.1 – owner of Car bearing No.RJ-27-CD-4506 against the judgment and
award dated 19.12.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar (for short referred to as “learned Tribunal”)
in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.209/2016 under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short referred to as “MV Act”) wherein the
learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3 and awarded compensation of Rs.4,74,844/- with interest
at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition to be
paid by present appellant – original respondent No.1.

[2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have chosen not to
appear before this Court. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi

                                 Page 1 of 5
    C/FA/3942/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026




appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval
appearing for respondent No.5.

[3.0] The brief facts of the present appeal are that the accident took
place on 21.10.2015, when the deceased Jasvantsinh Zala was sitting
beside the driver seat of Tractor bearing No.GJ-18-H-2962 being driven
by driver of the Tractor namely Pratapsinh and were going to village
Lavarpur. At the time and place of accident, car bearing No.RJ-27-CD-
4506 came from opposite direction being driven by its driver in a careless
manner and while overtaking on going vehicle, the car dashed agains the
tractor as a result of which deceased Jasvantsinh Zala (hereinafter
referred to as “deceased”) fell from the tractor and sustained fatal head
injuries and died. In this regard, a complaint was lodged with Dabhoda
Police Station. The legal heirs and representatives of deceased – original
claimants Iled the claim petition and after appreciating the evidence,
the claim petition against original opponent Nos.2 and 3 was dismissed
and appellant herein – original opponent No.1 was directed to pay the
compensation of Rs.4,74,844/- to the original claimants. Being aggrieved
and dissatisIed with the impugned judgment and award, the present
appellant – original owner of Car bearing No.RJ-27-CD-4506 has Iled the
present appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the appellant
has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error in
holding the present appellant liable to pay the compensation though it
was proved on the record that on the date of accident, present appellant
was not the owner of the Car No.RJ-27-CD-4506. He has submitted that
earlier the present appellant was the owner of the said car but said
vehicle was damaged in Jood on 26.07.2015 and hence, the then
insurance company of the Car No.RJ-27-CD-4506 – Bharti AXA General
Insurance Co. Ltd. had declared the said car as total loss and accordingly,



                                 Page 2 of 5
    C/FA/3942/2023                               JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026




paid the claim amount to the appellant. Subsequently, the purchaser or
buyer of salvage executed a contract of sale dated 16.10.2015 with the
present appellant and thereafter the present appellant was not in
possession or control of the said car and the buyer of salvage i.e. one Mr.
Mohammed Saied Nattekha Sheikh, resident of Udaipur, Rajasthan made
the said car pliable on the road. Hence, present appellant was neither the
owner nor in control or possession of the said car and hence, not liable to
pay the compensation. Hence, he has requested to allow the present
appeal.


[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval appearing for the
respondent No.5 – New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has opposed the
appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has already
exonerated the respondent No.5 – original opponent No.3 as well as
the original opponent No.2 and hence, learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in saddling the present appellant with the
liability to pay the compensation to the original claimants.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate appearing for the respective
parties and perusing the evidence on record as well as the impugned
judgment and award, it appears that while Ixing the liability the learned
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that present appellant – original
opponent No.1 is the owner of the involved car bearing No.RJ-27-CD-
4506 which was uninsured. Relying on the ground that the car was
uninsured, it was held by the learned Tribunal that the present appellant
being the owner of the car is liable to pay the compensation to the
original claimants. If we peruse the written statement (Exh.10) Iled by
the present appellant before the learned Tribunal, a speciIc averment is
made in para 12 of the written statement that due to Jood his vehicle i.e.
Car No.RJ-27-CD-4506 was submerged and its insurance company namely
Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. had assessed the said car as total


                                 Page 3 of 5
    C/FA/3942/2023                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026




loss and thereafter, on 16.10.2015, one Mr. Mohammed Saied Nattekha
Sheikh, resident of Udaipur, Rajasthan had purchased the said salvage
and in this regard, one contract came to be executed between the
parties. Further, though charge-sheet is Iled against said Mr. Mohammed
Saied Nattekha Sheikh i.e. purchaser of said salvage, he is not joined as a
party to the proceeding of claim petition. Though speciIc contention to
avoid liability was taken by the present appellant, no speciIc evidence in
that regard is led even in the cross-examination of the original claimant
also. As the claimants are third party, they have nothing to do with the
said fact however, as no opportunity was availed to the appellant –
owner to prove his defence taken by the appellant in his written
statement, pleading taken itself is not a proof.

[7.0] Hence, this Court is of considered view that there is more than one
reason to give an opportunity to the appellant to prove his defence that
(i) he was neither the owner of the Car No.RJ-27-CD-4506 at the time of
accident nor he was in possession or control of the said car on 21.10.2015
as the said car was already assessed as total loss by the then insurance
company and subsequently buyer of salvage has made the said car in
plying condition and plied on the road; (ii) charge-sheet is Iled against
one Mr. Mohammed Saied Nattekha Sheikh and he is not joined as a party
opponent in the claim petition and (iii) alleged accident took place on
21.10.2015 and policy of the vehicle was in force and vehicle was insured
with Bharti AXA General Insurance Company. Hence, this Court is of
considered view that on aforesaid three grounds, matter is required to
be remitted back to the learned Tribunal.


[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and award dated 19.12.2019 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.209/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside and



                                 Page 4 of 5
     C/FA/3942/2023                                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026




Motor Accident Claim Petition No.209/2016 is hereby remitted back to
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Gandhinagar to
afresh decide the MACP No.209/2016 independently on its own merits
after aPording opportunity to all the parties to lead the evidence. The
learned Tribunal to conclude the remitted matter within a period of SIX
MONTHS from the date of receipt of the present judgment.


[9.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.


                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                        (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/01/2026 17:34:18




                                                   Page 5 of 5