THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE vs THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/4305/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240764682025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4305 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4305 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4306 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4306 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4307 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4307 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4308 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4308 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4309 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4309 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4310 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4310 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4311 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4311 of 2026
With
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4305/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240764682025)
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4312 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4312 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4313 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4313 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4338 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4338 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4351 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4351 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4352 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4352 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4353 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4353 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4354 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4354 of 2026
==================================================
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
Versus
THAKORBHAI CHHOTUBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==================================================
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4305/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240764682025)
Appearance :
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Defendant(s) No. 10,12
==================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 14/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
[1] An accident occurred on 16.01.2008 between a bus
(insured with Reliance Insurance Company), a tanker (insured
with New India Assurance Company), a tipper (insured with
National Insurance Company) and a truck (also insured with
New India Insurance Company). As a result of this accident,
some of the occupants of the bus were killed, and some of them
were seriously injured.
[2] The legal representatives of the deceased and the injured
preferred claim petitions, alleging negligence on the part of the
drivers of tanker, the tipper, and the truck.
[3] The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, came to
the conclusion that the drivers of the bus, the tanker, the tipper,
and the truck were all negligent and attributed negligence in
the ratio of 10% : 70% : 10% : 10%.
[4] Being aggrieved by this award, the insurer of the bus, i.e.,
Reliance Insurance Company, is in appeal. The insurer of the
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4305/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240764682025)
tanker, i.e., New India Assurance Company, is also in appeal.
However, its appeal is confined only to the quantum of
compensation awarded, and it is not challenging the award on
the ground of negligence.
[5] In our view, since only the question of negligence has been
raised by the insurer of the bus, i.e., Reliance Insurance
Company, it would be appropriate to consider this question only.
[6] It is not in dispute that the police, after investigation, laid
a charge sheet against only the driver of the tanker. The police
did not choose to lay any charges against either the driver of the
bus, the driver of the tipper, or the driver of the other truck. In
short, it was the case of the police that the negligence was
attributable only to the driver of the tanker.
[7] It may also be pertinent to state here that the driver of the
tanker, who was very much available, was not examined by the
insurer of the tanker to establish that the other drivers of the
bus, tipper, and the other truck were also responsible for the
accident.
[8] If the best evidence available, i.e., the driver of the tanker,
was not examined to establish negligence on the part of the
drivers, necessarily, the negligence cannot be attributed to the
driver of the bus. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Mangla Ram versus The Oriental
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4305/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240764682025)
Insurance Company reported in 2018 (5) SCC 656 , would be
of assistance, since the laying of a charge sheet is prima facie
proof that the person charged was responsible for the accident.
[9] As noticed above, since the driver was also not examined
to disprove this allegation of negligence, it will have to be held
that the driver of the bus, which had been insured with Reliance
Insurance Company, cannot be held responsible for the
accident.
[10] We, therefore, hold that the driver of the bus cannot be
held responsible in any way for the accident, and consequently,
the attribution of 10% negligence to the driver of the bus is set
aside, and the said percentage of negligence is attributed to the
driver of the tanker.
[11] An argument is advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the insurer of the tanker that the panchnama, as
well as the affidavits of the occupants of the bus, indicated
negligence not only on the part of the driver of the tanker but
also on the part of the driver of the tipper and the truck, and
therefore, the attribution of negligence by the Tribunal to all the
drivers cannot be found fault with.
[12] It is to be noticed here that the evidence of the occupants
of the bus in relation to negligence may not be credible, since it
may not be possible to accept their assertion that they
witnessed the accident in its entirety. An occupant of the bus
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4305/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240764682025)
would not actually be in a position to indicate the manner in
which the accident occurred, since they would have no clear
view of the oncoming traffic while sitting inside the bus.
[13] We, therefore, reject the contention of the insurer that the
evidence of the occupants would justify the attribution of
negligence not only to the driver of the tanker but also to the
drivers of the tipper and the other truck.
[14] As far as the panchnama is concerned, it is to be noticed
here that the panchnama is a document prepared by police
personnel after the accident, and it is attested by a few
witnesses. Admittedly, none of these persons who were parties
to the panchnama were witnesses to the accident. Furthermore,
since the police who prepared the panchnama have laid a
charge sheet against the driver of the tanker, it is obvious that
the negligence cannot be attributed to the driver of the bus.
[15] We make it clear that in these appeals, we are not going
into the question of negligence alleged against the driver of the
tipper (to the extent of 10%) and also against the driver of the
other truck (to the extent of 10%), and this appeal is confined
only to the aspect of negligence between the driver of the bus
and the driver of the tanker.
[16] The appeals filed by the Reliance Insurance Company is
accordingly allowed.
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:51 IST 2026
C/FA/4305/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2026
(GJHC240764682025)
[17] All pending applications stand consigned to records.
[18] The Registry is directed to refund the court fee, if any, in
accordance with rules/law.
[19] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court, forthwith.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Oct 18 00:00:51 IST 2026