AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Panchmahal at Godhara on 13.04.2005 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1055 of 2002, the present appellant - Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
I have heard Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.C.K.Shah, learned advocate for the respondents.
Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the learned tribunal has passed the judgment and award against law, facts of evidence on record. He has further submitted that the learned tribunal wrongfully considered that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award. He has further submitted that the learned tribunal erred in observing that since the jeep bearing registration no.GJ.17.C.4914 was being used regularly for hire and/or reward. There was no permit to ply the same as a motor cab as per definition 2 (25) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He has further argued that as per Section 2 (33) of the Act defines Private Service Vehicle as "a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry moree than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons
for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes." He has further submitted that the award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, Mr.C.K.Shah, learned advocate for the respondents in the present case, widow of the deceased has been examined at Exhibit 26 and even from the evidence produced on record, it is not established that the driver of the vehicle has collected fair amount from the deceased and others. He has further submitted that the appellant has not produced any evidence on record to establish its version against the award.
I have heard both the parties and also minutely perused the oral evidences.
It is true that Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but it is required to be considered at this stage as to whether the driver of the vehicle has collected fair amount from the deceased or not. It is very important issue in the present case and the evidence in that regard has not been produced or it is not even argued. Therefore, the said provision is not applicable
in this matter.
I have gone through the observations made by the learned tribunal and the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is fair, just and proper and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Panchmahal at Godhara on 13.04.2005 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1055 of 2002.
In view of the aforesaid matter, the present appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.