NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD vs BHAMINIBEN WD-O BHARATBHAI RAJBHAI DALVANI

Court
Gujarat High Court

C/FA/335/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240399632014)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 335 of 2014
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
BHAMINIBEN WD-O BHARATBHAI RAJBHAI DALVANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
MR MM SAIYED(1806) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 21/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal,
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in brief, ‘MV
Act’), challenging the judgment and award dated 29.03.2013,
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Bharuch (‘tribunal’, herein after), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 149 of 1999, whereby, the tribunal awarded total
compensation of Rs.10,50,828/- along with 9% interest per
annum from original Opponent Nos. 1 to 3, jointly and severally.
2. Brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the present
appeal, are that on 12.11.1998, the deceased - Bharatbhai
Rajbhai Dalvani was riding his motorcycle, bearing registration
No. GJ-16-D-7274, and one Paresh Priyavadanbhai Lakhpati
was sitting as pillion rider and they were proceeding on Rajpipla
to Bharuch road. When they reached near the place of accident,
i.e. Pratapnagar at about 22:00 p.m., opponent No.1 came
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 17:33:38 IST 2026

C/FA/335/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240399632014)
driving his truck, bearing registration No. GJ-17-U-7494, in rash
and negligent manner and with excessive speed and dashed with
the motorcycle of Bharatbhai. As a result thereof, Bharatbhai
died on the spot, whereas, pillion rider Pareshbhai received
severe injuries.
2.1 Hence, the widow, two minor children and the mother of
the deceased – Bharatbhai filed the claim petition, under Section
166 of the MV Act, seeking total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-
from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck jointly
and severally.
2.2 The original claimants claimed that the deceased –
Bharatbhai was serving with Surat-Bharuch Gramin Bank as an
officer and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It was also
stated that the deceased was the sole breadwinner for the family
and due to his untimely death, the family has lost the economic
as well as emotional support, both.
2.3 On being served original Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 appeared
through their learned advocate and filed their written-statements
vide Exhibits- 27 and 19, respectively. Original Opponent No.3 –
insurance company raised the contention of non-involvement of
the truck in question in the alleged accident, by pointing out
some contradictions in the police investigation. However, the
tribunal considered the material on record and attributed 40%
negligence on the part of the deceased – Bharatbhai and 60%
negligence on the part of the driver of the truck, i.e. original
Opponent No.1. Being aggrieved with the same the appellant –
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 17:33:38 IST 2026

C/FA/335/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240399632014)
Original Opponent No.3-insurance company has filed the
present appeal.
3. Heard, learned advocate, Mr. Mazmudar, for the appellant
– original Opponent No.3 - insurance company and learned
advocate, Mr. Saiyed, for the original claimants. Though served,
none appeared for original Opponent No.2 – owner, Opponent
No.6, herein.
4. Considering the issue raised by learned advocate, Mr.
Mazmudar, appearing for the appellant – insurance company,
this Court, vide order dated 07.10.2026, had directed Dy.S.P.,
Bharuch, to carry out fresh investigation into the matter and to
submit a report through learned AGP, Ms. Urvashi Purohit.
4.1 Today, Dy.S.P., Bharuch, submitted a report dated
19.10.2026, which is signed by SP, Bharuch, through learned
AGP, Ms. Purohit, which is ordered to be taken on record. The
report submitted by Dy.S.P., Bharuch, indicates that fresh
investigation was carried out in the matter, which also suggests
that the truck driver, original Opponent No.1 and present
Opponent No.5, had dashed truck with the motorcycle of the
deceased – Bharatbhai and consequently, Bharatbhai had died
on the spot. Leaving a minor inconsistency on the part of the
Dy.S.P., Bharuch, that he had relied on the statement of
Mohsinkhan and other witness as well as the statement of the
truck driver that the truck had dashed the motorcycle and as a
result thereof, motorcycle rider had expired in the road accident.
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 17:33:38 IST 2026

C/FA/335/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240399632014)
4.2 Learned advocate, Mr. Mazmudar, appearing for the
appellant – insurance company could not point out any other
issue, which has been either left out or not dealt with by the
tribunal. Further, the fresh investigation, which took place
pursuant to the order of this Court and under the supervision of
SP, Bharuch, also indicates that the truck was involved in the
alleged road accident, as it had dashed the motorcycle from
behind, resulting into death of its rider. The learned tribunal
has discussed the entire aspect in Paragraphs-25 to 27 of the
impugned judgment and award, which leave no manner of doubt
about the involvement of the truck in the alleged road accident.
Hence, the present appeal fails and the same deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment
and award dated 29.03.2013, passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bharuch, in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No. 149 of 1999 is hereby confirmed. If, the
tribunal has not disbursed the amount of compensation in
favour of the original claimants so far, it shall disburse the same
forthwith , after due verification, through NEFT / RTGS and if
required, by passing fresh orders for disbursement. R&P, if any,
be sent back to the concerned tribunal.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 17:33:38 IST 2026