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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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