HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTDversusHARSHABEN VINODRAY TERAIYA

     C/FA/1388/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1388 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting              Yes          No

==========================================================
             HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
                              Versus
                HARSHABEN VINODRAY TERAIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 11/02/2026
                            ORAL JUDGMENT


1.     This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and award dated 27.12.2021 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Sp.), Rajkot in MACP No.619 of 2015.


2.     Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though
served none appears for respondent No.1 to 7.


3.     The brief facts of the case are that on 17-01-2015 at about
8:30 p.m., while returning to his village Bhadli on his motorcycle
and riding on the left side of the road, the deceased was hit by a
Chhakdo rickshaw coming from the opposite direction, which
was being driven rashly and negligently. He sustained serious
injuries and was taken first to Jasdan Government Hospital,
thereafter to Rajkot G.T. Sheth Orthopaedic Hospital and
subsequently to H.J. Doshi Hospital, where he succumbed to his


                                Page 1 of 5
     C/FA/1388/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




injuries during treatment. The accident occurred solely due to
the negligence of the driver of the said Chhakdo rickshaw. A
complaint was lodged against the driver, and after investigation,
a charge-sheet was filed against him.


4.     The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
learned Tribunal has passed the judgment contrary to the settled
principles of law and has erred in drawing unwarranted
inferences from the evidence on record. Learned advocate for the
appellant submits that the learned Tribunal failed to properly
appreciate the evidence and that the Chhakdo rickshaw was not
involved in the accident. The complaint was filed belatedly, after
a delay of 42 days. In the FIR, the number of the vehicle was not
mentioned, though it was subsequently implanted. It is further
submitted that the Tribunal relied upon inadmissible evidence,
including the alleged confessional statement of the accused
driver made before the police, and on that basis accepted the
involvement of the vehicle, which is impermissible in law. It is
also submitted that the claimant was examined at Exhibit 53
and admitted that neither the mudguard of the rickshaw
allegedly found at the scene of the accident was sent to the FSL,
nor was any mobile-location data of the accused rickshaw driver
collected to confirm the involvement of the said vehicle. Despite
the absence of such corroborative evidence, the Tribunal
proceeded merely on the ipse dixit of the complainant and on
presumptions,         and   fastened    liability   upon     the     Insurance
Company. It is further submitted that a criminal case was
registered against the accused, who happens to be the nephew of
the deceased. In view of the above, it is prayed that the appeal be


                                  Page 2 of 5
     C/FA/1388/2022                        JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




allowed and the impugned award be quashed and set aside.


5. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and
having gone through the record and proceedings, it appears that
the appeal has been filed only on the ground of non-involvement
of the vehicle. No issue with regard to negligence or quantum is
raised.


6.     It appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the
evidence produced at Exhibit-30 and, so far as income is
concerned, the document at Exhibit-38. The witnesses were
examined, including the Investigating Officer at Exhibit-53. The
RC Book of the vehicle was produced at Exhibit-44, the post-
mortem report at Exhibit-45, the driving licence at Exhibit-46
and the medical bills and other documentary evidence at
Exhibits-48 to 41.


7.     So far as involvement is concerned, the evidence reveals
that on 17-01-2015 at about 8:15 p.m., the deceased was riding
his motorcycle on the left side of the road at moderate speed
when opponent No.1 came driving the Chhakdo rickshaw in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle,
resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. Initially, he was
shifted by the 108 ambulance to PHC Jasdan and thereafter to
G.T. Sheth Hospital, where an offence was registered in
connection with the incident.


8.     Merely because the complaint was lodged after 42 days


                             Page 3 of 5
      C/FA/1388/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case, particularly
when the incident occurred at night and the rickshaw driver fled
from the scene. From the spot, the motorcycle, its indicator and
the mudguard of the rickshaw were recovered and sent for
examination to the FSL. Initially, the complaint was registered
without the vehicle number, but during investigation the
involvement of the vehicle was established. PSI R.D. Wadher was
examined and confirmed the involvement of the rickshaw. A
charge-sheet was filed against the driver, who appeared before
the criminal court and admitted the incident as well as his
negligence.


9.      From the record, it appears that the Insurance Company
cross-examined the Investigating Officer but failed to rebut the
evidence regarding involvement of the vehicle or to establish that
the rickshaw was falsely implanted. The charge-sheet was never
challenged by opponent No.1, who has also not disputed the
involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly
apportioned negligence to the extent of 90% on the part of the
rickshaw driver and 10% on the part of the deceased,
considering the nature of the road. No error can be found in
such conclusion. The coverage of the insurance policy on the
date of the accident is also not in dispute.


10.     In view of the above and relying upon the decision of
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chamundeshwari,
reported in 2021 ACJ 2558, the findings recorded by the
Tribunal do not warrant interference.



                              Page 4 of 5
      C/FA/1388/2022                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026




11.     On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be
just and proper, which calls for no interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves
dismissal and is hereby dismissed. If any amount is lying
deposited before this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the
learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. The Registry is
directed to return the Record & Proceedings, if any, to the
learned Tribunal forthwith.



                                                                 (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/02/2026 17:37:33




                                             Page 5 of 5