FA/249/1990 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 249 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s) Versus DURLABHBHAI GANDABHAI PATEL & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VC THOMAS for MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1, Defendant(s) : 1-3 SERVED, MR HEMANG R RAWAL for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT Date : 17/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT This Appeal preferred by the insurer – United India Insurance Company Limited under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises from the judgment and award dated 1st September, 1989 passed by the FA/249/1990 2/2 JUDGMENT Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Valsad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.317/1985. On 6th December, 1984, the claimant – Durlabhbhai Gandabhai, the respondent no.1 was passing on the road on a bicycle at around 9 O'clock in the morning. On the way, he was hit by the offending vehicle, an auto- rickshaw, causing grievous injuries to the claimant. He, therefore, lodged the aforesaid claim for recovery of compensation in the sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Before the Tribunal, the appellant – Insurance Company appeared and contested the claim also on behalf of the owner and the Driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal upheld the claim and allowed a compensation in the sum of Rs.1,45,536=00 and interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred the present Appeal. Before the Tribunal the Insurance Company raised a defence in respect of its limited liability. Nevertheless, the advocate engaged by the appellant also represented the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle representing the conflicting interest. The present Appeal by the Insurance Company is not maintainable. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost. (Ms.R.M.Doshit, J.) /moin