RAVI PARBATBHAI CHOVATIA Vs. DILIPBHAI KALYANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by appellant - insurance company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 17/6/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.19 of 2006, by which the Tribunal has awarded rejected the claim petition.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under :

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Henil Shah for learned advocate Mr. Mehul Shah has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition on unjustifiable grounds. He has submitted that the involvement of Maruti car bearing registration No.GJ-5-PP-5246 was found suspicious by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that MLC Certificate issued by Dr.Siroya where registration date is mentioned as 3/4/2004, whereas the date of accident is not registered, which is 28/4/2004. Therefore, the Tribunal has not believed that the involvement of Maruti Car is established and also erred in finding that the claimant has failed to establish the involvement of vehicle by examining the witnesses from the police authorities or examining Dr.Siroya. Therefore, he has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court in the case of :- (i) Anil versus New India Assurance Company Limited reported in (2018) 2 SCC 482, (ii) Sunita versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486, (iii) Pravinkumar M. Bhatt versus Minor Dakshaben R. Jasani reported in 2008 (2) GLH (UJ) 18 and (iv) Union of India versus Ashokbhai Govindbhai Patni reported in (2009) 50 (3) GLR 1845 and has submitted that the strict proof as required under the civil proceedings / procedure are not required in the matter under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, he has submitted that this appeal may be allowed by granting appropriate amount of compensation.