ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs ILABEN WD/O NILESHBHAI VINUBHAI PATEL

C/FA/2148/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240396192013)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2148 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2149 of 2013

=============================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
ILABEN WD/O NILESHBHAI VINUBHAI PATEL & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 6.2,6.3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6.1,6.4
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 26/10/2026

JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
(1) The occurrence of an accident on 05.11.2001 between a
Tractor and a Maruti car is not in dispute. As a result of this
accident, two occupants of the Maruti Car were killed, while the
other occupant sustained injuries.
(2) As a consequence, the legal representatives of the
deceased occupants preferred claim petitions, while the other
occupant also filed a claim application seeking compensation for
the injuries suffered by him.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 16:00:59 IST 2026

C/FA/2148/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240396192013)
(3) The Tribunal on considering of the evidence came to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the sudden
stoppage of the driver of tractor. This reasoning of the Tribunal
was based on the eye witness of the occupant of the car.
(4) The Tribunal specifically observed that, although the driver
of the tractor had been served with the summons issued in the
claim petition have not appeared nor was he examined by the
insurer. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that there
was nothing elicited from the cross-examination of the occupant
of the car to establish that the driver of the car had also
contributed to the accident in any manner.
(5) The insurer, however, contends that the claim petition, at
least insofar as the claim of the deceased driver is concerned,
ought to have been rejected, since the eye witness, who had
himself filed a claim petition, had pleaded in his claim petition
that both the driver of the car as well as the driver of the tractor
were jointly responsible for the accident.
(6)
An argument was also advanced that an abated charge-
sheet had been filed against the driver of the Maruti car and that
therefore, by itself, was proof of contributory negligence on the
part of the driver of the car.
(7) The occupant of the car, who was an eye witness to the
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 16:00:59 IST 2026

C/FA/2148/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240396192013)
accident, was examined by the claimants. During the course of
his cross-examination, not even a suggestion is put forth by the
insurer that the tractor had neither taken a sudden turn nor
stopped suddenly, resulting in the accident. If the insurer does
not put to even a suggestion that the tractor did not either stop
or take a turn. It is obvious that the plea of the claimants that the
tractor suddenly stopped or took a turn is in fact admitted. It is
therefore obvious that the Tribunal was justified in coming to the
conclusion that the accident occurred because of the negligence
of the driver of the tractor. The fact that the driver of the tractor
was also not examined indicates that the best evidence
regarding the accident was kept away from the Tribunal. The
Tribunal, was, therefore, justified in taking the view that the
driver of the tractor was responsible for the accident.
(8)
The argument advanced that the driver of the car was
charge-sheeted and, therefore, he should have contributed to the
accident cannot be accepted. The charge-sheet was filed against
the deceased driver of the car without his statement having been
recorded, as he was no longer alive. The filing of a charge- sheet
against the deceased driver should, in law, be corroborated by
other evidence to establish negligence.
(9) In the instant case, as noted above, the driver of the
tractor was not examined, whereas the occupant of the car was
examined. No suggestion has been put to him that the tractor
was running and had neither stopped suddenly nor taken a
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 16:00:59 IST 2026

C/FA/2148/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240396192013)
sudden turn. In the light of this evidence, in our view, the finding
of the Tribunal regarding negligence being completely on the
part of the driver of the tractor cannot be found fault with.
(10) As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
sums awarded are just and proper, and the ascertainment of the
income of the deceased cannot be found fault with. Furthermore,
no appeal has been preferred by the claimants, which also
indicates that the amounts awarded are adequate.
(11)
In the result, we see no reason to entertain the appeals.
The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
RIYA
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 16:00:59 IST 2026