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 p. 2 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 p. 3 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 p. 4 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