JAYANTIBHAI DEVKARANBHAI PATELversusVISHNUJI JAYANTIJI PARMAR

     C/FA/509/2013                              JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 509 of 2013

                                 With
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 510 of 2013
                                 With
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 of 2013
                                 With
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 512 of 2013
                                 With
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 513 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
           Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

==========================================================
     LEGAL HEIRS OF JAYDEEPKUMAR KODARBHAI PATEL & ANR.
                            Versus
               VISHNUJI JAYANTIJI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

                            Date : 22/07/2026
                              JUDGMENT
1.     The present batch of appeals have been preferred by the original
claimants against the common impugned judgment and award dated
22.09.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Main), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in M.A.C.P. No.768 of 2007,
M.A.C.P. No. 769 of 2007, M.A.C.P. No.770 of 2007, M.A.C.P. No.774 of
2007 and M.A.C.P. No.21 of 2008, whereby the claim petitions came to
be rejected by the learned Tribunal.


2.     Since all the captioned appeals arise out of the same vehicular
accident and proceed on identical questions of facts and law, they have



                                Page 1 of 8
     C/FA/509/2013                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026




been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3.     The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned
appeals, as narrated in the Claim Petitions are summarized as under:-


             i. On         30.05.2007,       deceased      Jaydipkumar,           injured
                     Pranaykumar, injured Jayantibhai, deceased Narsinhbhai
                     and injured Tarunkumar, were travelling as occupants in
                     a Tata 709 tempo bearing registration No.GJ-9Y-6237
                     with their goods, i.e., bags of fennel seeds, to sell them
                     at Unja. The said tempo was being driven by original
                     opponent No.1 – Mr. Vishnuji Jayantiji Parmar and one
                     Mr. Umedsinh was travelling in the said tempo as its
                     conductor. When the said tempo was passing near the
                     Sabarmati river, one unknown trailer dashed with the said
                     tempo, as a result, the said tempo got overturned near
                     the riverside, thereby causing the vehicular accident. In
                     the said accident, all the occupants sustained grievous
                     injuries while, Mr. Jaydipkumar and Mr. Narsinhbhai
                     succumbed to the said injuries.


             ii. Therefore,       the    injured      occupants     and     the     legal
                     representatives of the deceased occupants, being the
                     claimants herein preferred their respective claim petitions
                     before the learned Tribunal for seeking appropriate
                     compensation.


             iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the



                                        Page 2 of 8
     C/FA/509/2013                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026




                     Claim Petition,     the driver, owner and insurer of the
                     tempo filed their respective Written Statements, thereby
                     denying the averments made in the Claim Petitions, and
                     in brief, prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petitions.


             iv. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record and
                     the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the
                     respective parties, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the
                     claim petitions preferred by the original claimants.


             v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
                     judgment      and   awards,       original   claimants/appellants
                     herein has challenged the impugned judgment and
                     award, thereby challenging the erroneous dismissal of the
                     claim petitions, more particularly on the ground of
                     negligence.


4.     Heard learned counsels for the parties.


5.       Mr. Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that on 30.05.2007
the claimants/appellants herein were traveling in a TATA 709 tempo
bearing registration No.GJ-9Y-6237 as occupants along with their
goods, i.e., bags of fennel seeds, bajara, to sell it at Unja. When the
said tempo was passing near the bridge on Sabarmathi River, one
unknown trailer dashed with the said tempo from behind. As a result,
the said tempo overturned into a ditch near the riverside and the
claimants sustained grievous injuries to their body and two of them
succumbed to their injuries. He argued that the claimants/appellants


                                         Page 3 of 8
     C/FA/509/2013                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026




herein have sustained grievous injuries owing to the composite
negligence of the driver of the tempo as well as the driver of the
unknown         trailer,     therefore,      he        contended     that     for       the
claimants/appellants herein, it is a case of composite negligence.
Hence, he argued that the learned Tribunal ought not have dismissed
the claim petitions on the ground that the negligence was not proved.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the claimants have placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2015 ACJ 1441. Having placed reliance
upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the claimants submitted that the captioned appeals are liable to be
allowed.


6.     Per contra, Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent - insurer of the tempo – Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited, vehemently submitted that the vehicular accident
had occurred owing to the reason that an unknown trailer had hit the
Tata tempo in which the claimants were travelling from behind, while it
was passing through the bridge of Sabarmathi river. He further
submitted that it is the case of all the claimants before learned Tribunal
that the accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the
driver of the unknown trailer. He further submitted that the driver of
the tempo, viz., Mr. Vishnuji Jayantiji Parmar has also filed the claim
petition    before     the     learned      Tribunal      for   seeking     appropriate
compensation. The driver also pleaded in the claim petition that the
accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the
unknown trailer. He has also stepped into the witness-box, but none of
the claimants has challenged the said version of the driver of the tempo
in the cross examination, rather, the claimants have even not chosen to

                                         Page 4 of 8
     C/FA/509/2013                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026




cross-examine the driver of the tempo. He submitted that the driver of
the tempo - Mr. Vishnuji Jayantiji Parmar, conductor- Mr. Umedsinh
and other occupants being the claimants/appellants herein, viz.,
Pranaykumar          Patel,   Jayantibhai   Patel,   Tarunkumar      Patel,    legal
representatives of Narsinhbhai Patel and legal representatives of
Jaydipkumar Patel had filed their respective claim petitions before the
learned Tribunal for seeking appropriate compensation and it is their
case that the tempo in which they were travelling hit an unknown trailer
and resultantly, the driver of the tempo lost control, and the tempo
overturned and fell into a ditch. As such, he argued that there is no
infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal, as such
prayed for dismissal of the captioned appeal.

7.     Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it
is to be noted that the original claimants/appellants herein has
challenged the impugned judgment and award, thereby challenging the
erroneous dismissal of the claim petitions, more particularly on the
ground of negligence.


8.     So far as negligence is concerned, perusal of the records
transpires that the claimants’ version is that the tempo in which they
were travelling hit an unknown vehicle and resultantly, the driver of the
Tempo lost control over its steering and the said Tempo overturned and
fell down into a ditch. As noted above the Driver, Conductor, and the
occupants, being the claimants/appellants herein have filed their
respective claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. The Driver of the
Tempo had stepped into the witness-box and he deposed that the
vehicular accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the


                                      Page 5 of 8
     C/FA/509/2013                               JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026




driver of the unknown trailer. The Conductor has also filed his affidavit
and also stepped into the witness-box and he also corroborated the
version of the driver. It is to be noted that none of the claimants has
challenged the said version of the driver of the tempo in the cross
examination, and they have not cross-examined the driver of the
tempo. Further, the FIR came to be filed by one Mr. Navalsinh, which
was proved at Exh.16. The said FIR was also filed against the driver of
the unknown trailer. The panchnama of the place of accident has also
been proved at Exh.67. Perusal of the panchnama would show that the
rear portion of the tempo was damaged, therefore, the version of the
driver and conductor of the tempo is also supported by the panchnama
and FIR. The learned Tribunal, after considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that
the vehicular accident had occurred owing to the sole negligence of the
driver of the unknown trailer. In my considered view, the findings
returned by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned and is arrived at after
elaborate discussions of oral as well as documentary evidence available
on record. Thus, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the
issue of negligence is not required to be interfered with and is
accordingly upheld.


9.     Further, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Honorable Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra), wherein at para
18, the Honorable Apex Court has observed as under :-

           “(i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is
           entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to
           recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort


                                  Page 6 of 8
      C/FA/509/2013                                JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026




            feasors is joint and several.

            (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of
            compensation between two tortfeasors vis a vis the
            plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his
            option whole damages from any of them.

            (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and
            evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to
            determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the
            drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence
            between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their
            inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the
            other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant
            to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case
            both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/
            extent of their negligence has been determined by the
            court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor can recover
            the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.

            (iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/tribunal to
            determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of
            two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort
            feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be
            left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in
            independent proceedings after passing of the decree or
            award”


10.     In the case on hand, though two vehicles were involved, the
unknown trailer was held solely negligent for causing the vehicular
accident. The question of composite negligence would come into play
when the drivers of both vehicles have contributed for causing the
vehicular accident. However, in the case on hand, as noted above, no
negligence can be attributed to the driver of the tempo in causing the
vehicular accident. As such, the contentions raised by the learned


                                    Page 7 of 8
         C/FA/509/2013                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026




  counsel for the claimants/appellants herein is not sustainable and is
  accordingly rejected.


  11.      Thus, after a thorough examination of the case records, this court
  finds no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
  claimants/appellants. No error or infirmity is evident in the impugned
  judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. As such, the captioned
  appeals preferred by the original claimants stands dismissed.


  12.      Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this
  Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith.
  Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal
  concerned. No order as to costs.


  13.      Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.




                                                                      (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
  ARUN


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ARUN B(HC02368), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/07/2026 16:29:19




                                                 Page 8 of 8