C/FA/2177/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2177 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================== NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Versus RAMILABEN WD/O ISHWARSINH MAKWANA & ORS. ============================================== Appearance: MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR AMIT C NANAVATI(1384) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR. HARDIK K CHOKSI(9964) for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6 ============================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 04/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 03.02.2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Panchmahals at Godhra (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.207 of 2014, the appellant – opponent no.3 therein – National Insurance Company Ltd., has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short). Page 1 of 6 C/FA/2177/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. C. Thomas, for the appellant, learned Advocate Mr. A. C. Nanavati, for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and learned Advocate Mr. H. K. Choksi for the respondent nos.5 and 6. Perused the original record and proceedings. 3) It is the case of the original claimants – respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, that on 14.01.2014 the deceased Ishwarsinh was going by foot at side of the road from Godhra to Shahera. When he was passing from the place of accident, the opponent no.1 riding motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-S-9000 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the deceased. Resultantly the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claimants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition. 4) The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that initially the complaint was filed against unknown vehicle and registration number of vehicle was given subsequently. The father-in-law of the deceased appeared and his vehicle is involved and planted subsequently though FSL Report clearly reveals that there were break marks of four wheeler though two wheeler is produced and on the ground of involvement the present appeal is filed and submitted that the learned Tribunal p. 2 C/FA/2177/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 has committed error in considering the aforesaid vehicle. He has further submitted that the said vehicle at all is not involved and hence requested to exonerate the Insurance Company by allowing the present appeal. 5) Learned Advocate for the respondents have submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and after appreciating the evidence produced on record awarded proper compensation. Hence, they have requested to dismiss the present appeal. 6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on preponderance of probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered the affidavit at Exhibit 28 wherein all the facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the claim petition. The learned Tribunal has perused the complaint at Exhibit 32, panchnama at Exhibit 33, Inquest Panchnama at Exhibit 34, PM Report at Exhibit 35, Vehicle Panchnama at Exhibit 36, statement of owner of vehicle at Exhibit 37, and after perusing the evidence the learned Tribunal came to the p. 3 C/FA/2177/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 conclusion that due to negligence of the driver of motorcycle the alleged incident took place. 7) The present appeal is filed on the ground of involvement of the vehicle, it is true that complaint was filed against unknown vehicle and after investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed against the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-S-9000. The panchnama at Exhibit 36 reveals involvement of the said vehicle and further the Criminal Case was conducted against the said opponent no.1 – respondent no.5 herein and specific defence was raised by the Insurance Company that the vehicle was not involved as complaint was registered against unknown vehicle. The panchnama also reveals that the owner of the vehicle - Ratansinh has produced motorcycle before the police and his statement was recorded by the police, wherein, he has stated that on 14.01.2014, his friend Dalpatbhai Shivabhai came to his home and asked him to give motorcycle therefore he gave his motorcycle to him. Then at about 10 O’clock at night he came to know hearsay that one person of Umarpur Village, met with an accident near village Khandiya Bahi crossing. The person who died during the accident namely Ishwarbhai Balvantbhai was also of Umarpur village. On 25.01.2014, Dalpatbhai Shivabhai has informed him that when I was going with your motorcycle and he was driving the motorcycle in full speed and p. 4 C/FA/2177/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 at that time the accident occurred and he dashed one person who was going by food on road. 8) Relying on the aforesaid fact and appreciating the evidence it reveals that the owner of the vehicle has produced the vehicle before the police on his own and he has accepted the involvement of the vehicle. Once the involvement of the vehicle is accepted by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle then in absence of any material question does not arise to disbelieve the said version. Even the owner of the vehicle appeared before the Criminal Court and trial was proceeded against him. In view of above merely filing of the complaint against unknown vehicle is not a ground to overturn the findings of the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs Ms. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, held in para 10 as under: “We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No.1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.” p. 5 C/FA/2177/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026 9) In view of above, the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence as strict proof of pleadings is not required based on preponderance of probabilities and res ipsa loquitur the negligence and involvement of the vehicle is accepted and reasons assigned by the Tribunal qua issue no.1 is proper and does not call for interference. Hence, the arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant is not accepted. 10) The present appeal is filed on the ground of involvement of the vehicle and as the involvement is proved, the findings of the Tribunal qua factum of death, quantum and liability does not call for any interference and not required to be disturbed and hence no interference is required with the judgment and award dated 03.02.2022, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra, in MAC Petition No.207 of 2014. 11) Record and proceedings (if any) be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 12) Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI p. 6