Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from a common judgment and award dated 16.06.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Limbdi, in MAC Petition Nos. 1740 of 2012 and 1739 of 2012. The claimants, respondents nos. 1 to 5, had filed the petitions claiming compensation for the death of Raliben @ Rakhiben Dhanjibhai and her husband Dhanjibhai Kalabhai in a road accident on 22.01.2008. They alleged that the deceased were travelling as passengers with goods in a truck bearing registration No. GJ-07-TT-6066, owned by the appellant, driven by opponent no.2, and insured with opponent no.3. The truck turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions, holding the appellant owner liable.
In the appeal, the appellant contended that he was not given any opportunity by the Tribunal to defend himself. He claimed that his vehicle, a TATA 709 light goods vehicle with closed body used for transporting milk, had its number plate fraudulently used by some impostor on another vehicle with original registration No. GJ-08-V-2362, which was an open truck. The accident occurred at a location far from his usual work route. The appellant had supplied documents to the insurance company, which assured him it would take care of his defence, leading to his absence before the Tribunal. The insurance company (respondent no.7) opposed the appeal, stating it had been exonerated and no question of remanding arose as it had no liability.
The High Court observed that the issue of involvement of the vehicle was undisputed and that the appellant had failed to lead evidence before the Tribunal. However, considering that the appellant had relied on the insurance company which did not properly present his defence, the court found it expedient to give him an opportunity to prove his case regarding the vehicle’s non-involvement. It held that the matter required remand for fresh adjudication on the question of involvement, after affording all parties an opportunity to present their defence. The common judgment and award dated 16.06.2021 was quashed and set aside, and the proceedings were remitted to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the issue within three months.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles – Appeal under Section 173 – Remand – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 – The appellant owner of a truck claimed that his vehicle's number plate was fraudulently affixed on another vehicle involved in the accident, and he was denied opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal. Insurance Company was exonerated. High Court held that the owner should be given an opportunity to prove his case regarding involvement of the vehicle, as he relied on the Insurance Company to defend but they did not properly lead evidence. Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh decision after affording opportunity to parties. Held, remanded. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant - original opponent no.1 (owner of the vehicle) was denied an opportunity to defend himself and lead evidence regarding the involvement of the vehicle in the accident, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Final Decision
The common judgment and award dated 16.06.2021 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings of both MAC petition nos. 1739 and 1740 of 2012 are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the issue of involvement of the vehicle, after affording opportunity to the parties. Tribunal to decide within three months.
Law Points
- Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Remand for fresh adjudication
- Opportunity to lead evidence
- Question of vehicle involvement
- Fraudulent number plate
- Natural justice
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 446
R/First Appeal No. 2860 of 2025 with R/First Appeal No. 3037 of 2025
Hiren M Modi, Dimple A Thaker, Nishit A Bhalodi
Ghanshyambhai Laxmanbhai Chaudhry
Mansukhbhai Dhanjibhai Devipujak & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Motor accident claim appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Limbdi.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (owner of truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-07-TT-6066) seeks to set aside the tribunal's award contending that his vehicle was not involved in the accident, his number plate was fraudulently affixed on another vehicle, and he was not given an opportunity to lead evidence.
Filing Reason
Appellant was held liable for compensation as owner of the vehicle, but he claims the vehicle involved was actually a different vehicle using his number plate, and he was not heard.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Limbdi, by common judgment and award dated 16.06.2021, partly allowed the claim petitions and saddled the appellant with liability. The appellant preferred appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues
Whether the appellant - original opponent no.1 was denied an opportunity to defend himself and prove that his vehicle was not involved in the accident, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he was not afforded any opportunity by the Tribunal; his vehicle's number plate was fraudulently used by another vehicle; he supplied material to insurance company which assured to take care of his defence, so he remained absent; the panchnama shows the truck with his number plate actually had original no. GJ-08-V-2362; his vehicle is a closed body milk van while the accident truck was open; no proceedings were initiated against the real owner of GJ-08-V-2362.
Respondent no.7 (Insurance Company) opposed the appeal, stating it was exonerated and no question of remanding as insurer has no liability (gratuitous passenger).
Ratio Decidendi
Where an owner of a vehicle is held liable for compensation but claims that his vehicle was not involved due to fraudulent use of his number plate, and he was denied an opportunity to lead evidence and defend himself, natural justice requires that he be given a chance to prove his case, and the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on the issue of involvement of the vehicle.
Judgment Excerpts
the learned Tribunal has not afforded any opportunity to the present appellant being owner of the alleged vehicle involved in the accident.
the vehicle No.GJ-08-V-2362, is involved in the accident though no proceeding came to be initiated against the owner of the truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-08-V-2362, and the present appellant saddled with the liability
it is expedient to give an opportunity to prove the case of the present appellant owner of the vehicle qua involvement of the vehicle
it is expedient to remit the matters to the Tribunal for a fresh decision qua involvement of the vehicle after affording opportunity to the parties
Procedural History
The claimants filed MAC Petition Nos. 1740 of 2012 and 1739 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Limbdi, arising out of an accident on 22.01.2008. The Tribunal passed a common judgment and award dated 16.06.2021 partly allowing the claims and holding the appellant (owner) liable. Aggrieved, the appellant filed First Appeal Nos. 2860 of 2025 and 3037 of 2025 before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court heard the appeals together and by oral judgment dated 02.03.2026, set aside the tribunal's award and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication on the issue of involvement of the vehicle.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173
