NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MAKVANA HARGOVANBHAI TEJABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 challenging the judgment and award passed by the MACT (Auxiliary), Mehsana dtd. 10/12/2021 rendered in MACP No.254 of 2018 whereby the driver of the Tractor bearing registration no.GJ-02-CL-2724 attached with the trolley bearing registration No.GRW 5896 is held to be negligent to the extent of 80% in causing the accident and awarding Rs.7,50,400.00 as compensation with cost and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the claim to the original claimants.

(2.) The facts of the case, as narrated in the impugned judgment and award, can be stated as under: No.GJ-02-CL-2724 attached with Trolley bearing registrati2.1] On 16/4/2018 at about 7:15 p.m. deceased Amitkumar Hargovanbhai Makvana was travelling in a Rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-02-VV-9290 going from Palavasana cross road towards village Boriyavi and while going towards village Boriyavi through signboard of village Mevad near government tubewell, one Tractor bearing registration on No.GRW 5896 came from the opposite side at an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Rickshaw. On account of the said accident, passenger - Amitkumar Hargovanbhai Makvana travelling in the Rickshaw sustained serious injuries in abdomen and face. The injured at the relevant time was immediately taken to the Government Hospital where he was declared dead. The claimants are the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased and have asked for compensation on account of death of the sole bread winner as mentioned in the Claim Petition and the evidence adduced before the tribunal. On conclusion of evidence and hearing the parties, the tribunal has awarded the compensation to the claimants, as aforesaid, attributing negligence on the part of the Driver of different vehicles as mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that from the FIR, Exh.37, it cannot be said that because of the Trolley any accident has occurred. At the same time, he has further submitted that even if the Driver of the Tractor with which the Trolley was attached is held responsible, nothing can be attributed to the Insurance Company of the Trolley as the Trolley has not caused any accident. Drawing attention of the Court to the definition of Tractor,Trailer and Semi-Trailer as defined under Sec. 2(44) , (46) and (39) respectively, it is submitted that being the Insurance Company of the Trailer-Trolley, they are not liable to indemnify the insured. Drawing attention of the Court to the papers of charge-sheet, it is attempted to be submitted that the driver of the Tractor is held responsible for causing the accident and Trolley is nowhere mentioned or even attached with the Tractor. The Record and Proceedings, which was called for, is available on record. The copy of charge-sheet is produced before the trial Court and it is exhibited at Exh.53, page 181 in the Record and Proceedings. It is attempted to be submitted that as mentioned in column no.5 of it, the accident has been caused by the negligent driving of the Driver of the Tractor and there is no reference about Trolley being attached with the Tractor at the relevant time, and therefore, the appellant cannot be held responsible to indemnify the owner for any accident caused by the Tractor. Hence, it is submitted that the Appeal be admitted and allowed.