NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. VEERABHAI LALJIBHAI PRJAPATI & 1
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
appeal is partly allowed with the direction that
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. It was argued by learned senior counsel Mr.Rajni Mehta that the alleged damage to the tractor was required to be duly proved before the Tribunal and the claimant having failed in proving the damage or loss, the Tribunal could FA/5226/2007 JUDGMENT not have fixed…
Judgment
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 to 5 NO ========================================================= NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus VEERABHAI LALJIBHAI PRJAPATI & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AJAY R MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE NOT RECD BACK for Defendant(s) : 1, MR.HIREN M MODI for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22/01/2008
The appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") was pressed on behalf of the insurance company for FA/5226/2007 JUDGMENT reducing the amount of compensation awarded to respondent No.1 mainly on the grounds that the respondent himself was responsible for the accident and the claim for damage to his tractor was inflated. According to the facts on record about which there is no controversy, the Indica car insured by the appellant dashed with the tractor and trailer of the claimant on 7.10.2003 on Vadali Highway. Apart from other claims of the parties, the claimant and respondent No.1 herein preferred a claim petition for damage to the tractor and claimed rupees one lakh by way of compensation. The Tribunal found and recorded that the bills and memos regarding repairs of the tractor were not duly signed and no authentic survey was carried out to assess the damage to the tractor. There was, however, no dispute about the fact that substantial damage was caused to the tractor and it was stated in the panchnama to be to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
Operative part
It was argued by learned senior counsel Mr.Rajni Mehta that the alleged damage to the tractor was required to be duly proved before the Tribunal and the claimant having failed in proving the damage or loss, the Tribunal could FA/5226/2007 JUDGMENT not have fixed the figure of Rs.75,000/-. It was, however, fairly conceded that the accident and the damage to the tractor were not in dispute and it was fairly conceded by learned counsel Mr.Modi, appearing for the original claimant, that, due to lack of proper and conclusive evidence of loss caused to the claimant, the amount of compensation may be suitably modified to meet the ends of justice. Learned counsel on both sides having made fair concessions and expressed their inclination to meet halfway, the appeal is partly allowed with the direction that the original claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.37,500/- with proportionate cost and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the original petition till realization and the impugned award shall stand modified accordingly. The amount deposited with this Court for the purpose of appeal shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Civil Application for stay does not survive and accordingly stands disposed as rejected and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (KMG Thilake) Sd/- ( D.H.Waghela, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is partly allowed with the direction that
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 22 Jan 2008. The bench was D H WAGHELA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.