AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is filed by the appellant – original opponent No.3 challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1435 of 2013, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to allow the claim petition of the original claimants with costs and interest against original opponent Nos.1 and 3.
[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. Aditya J. Pandya for the appellant – original opponent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi for the original claimant.
[3.0] It appears that Kailashchandra Ganpatbhai Bhatiya i.e. the husband of respondent No.1 herein – original claimant – insured was going on his bicycle and at that time, respondent No.2 herein – original opponent No.1 came driving his motorcycle No.GJ-01-NB-9132 in rash and negligent manner with full speed and dashed with the bicycle of the original claimant due to which the original claimant sustained serious injuries and therefore, he filed the claim petition being MACP No.1435/2013 on 30.08.2013 seeking compensation and during the pendency of petition, the original claimant died on account of the accidental injuries and therefore, respondent No.1 was impleaded as legal heir and representative of the original claimant. The MACP No.1435/2013 was filed against two opponents and present appellant was not joined as party opponent. During the pendency of claim petition, respondent No.3 – insurance company had filed an application Exh.52 and contended that the accident did not take place with the motorcycle driven by original opponent No.1 and pursuant to the said fact, claimant had filed an application (Exh.58) to reopen the right of the claimant to lead the evidence which was granted on 08.05.2025 and therefore, the original claimant moved an application (Exh.59) for joining the present appellant as party opponent No.3 in the pending claim petition. The notice was issued to the present appellant and the present appellant on being served with the notice, appeared before the learned Tribunal through advocate and filed the objection cum affidavit in reply on 11.06.2025 at Exh.64 and copy was served to the claimant also. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 25.06.2025 and 03.07.2025 but no proceeding took place and the next date in the mater was 30.07.2025 for applicant’s evidence. Though shockingly the claimant moved an application (Exh.65) dated 24.07.2025 for taking the matter on board without serving the copy of application and without giving any intimation to the present appellant and an ex parte order was passed on 24.07.2025 below application Exh.59 for joining the present appellant as party opponent No.3 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the present appellant.
[4.0] It further reveals from the record that the matter was listed on 06.08.2025. On that date, learned Tribunal pronounced the judgment and award wherein the learned Tribunal has specifically observed in paragraph 31 of the judgment that the present appellant is exonerated qua involvement of the vehicle insured with appellant – insurance company. The claim petition was allowed only against original opponent No.1. The said fact is also mentioned in the rojkam. After pronouncement of the judgment, the original claimant once again moved an application Exh.68 before the learned Tribunal on 11.08.2025 admittedly 5 days after the pronouncement of the judgment. No copy of the said application was served to the affected party – present appellant and the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the said application and pleased to fix the liability of the present appellant alongwith respondent No.2 herein and learned Tribunal has passed an order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the present appellant violating the principles of natural justice and by reviewing its own judgment on merits.
[5.0] In view of the aforesaid background, this Court is of considered view that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in changing the contents of the judgment in a manner not known to the law. Once the judgment and award is pronounced on 06.08.2025 and uploaded on the website exonerating the present appellant, there was no reason for the claimant to file application (Exh.68) for correction of the judgment without mentioning provision of law and that too for altering the nature of judgment and fixing or saddling the liability of present appellant without giving an opportunity of hearing to the present appellant. Hence, this Court is of considered view that said exercise is completely contrary to the provisions of law, illegal and arbitrary. Further, one more aspect required to be mentioned is that the application to join the present appellant as party opponent No.3 in the claim petition was given subsequently and though the present appellant filed detailed written statement raising objection qua involvement of the vehicle insured with the present appellant, learned Tribunal has allowed the application and joined the present appellant on the wrong pretext observing that proposed opponent – present appellant remained absent and no objection is raised though objection was filed which was already on record and copy of the said objection was served to the original claimant. Hence, it appears that the learned Tribunal has taken up the matter behind the back of the present appellant and in very hasty manner proceeded with the matter and passed an order on 24.07.2025 below Exh.58 ignoring the objection filed at Exh.64 and though the matter was posted on 30.07.2025, the order of joining appellant herein as party in the claim petition was passed on 24.07.2025 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the present appellant to defend its case and to dispute the involvement of the vehicle insured with the present appellant – insurance company. Both the orders passed by the learned Tribunal are in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and contrary to the law.
[6.0] In view of above, present appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1435 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside and matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to decide the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to present appellant right from the stage of deciding application (Exh.59) for joining party. The learned Tribunal is directed to conclude the remitted claim petition within a period of SIX MONTHS from the date of receipt of the present judgment since the claim petition is more than 12 years old. All the parties shall cooperate the learned Tribunal in expeditious disposal of the claim petition.
[7.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
[8.0] In view of disposal of First Appeal, Civil Application (For Stay) also stands disposed of.