FA/1776/2002 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1776 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 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 Versus KAMLESHBEN SURENDRASINGH TOMAR & 4 - Defendants ================================================= Appearance : MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Appellant: NOTICE SERVED for Defendant: 1 - 4. MR AV PRAJAPATI for Defendant : 1, SERVED BY AFFIX.(N) for Defendant: 5, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 08/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. Present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the common judgment & award passed by learned MACT FA/1776/2002 2/2 JUDGMENT (Aux), Ahmedabad City, in MCAP No. 1592 of 1998 and in MACP No. 920 of 1999, dated 4th January, 2002. 2. Mr. Nanavati for the appellant Insurance Company has challenged the findings of the Claims Tribunal in awarding Rs.50,000/- towards damages caused to the vehicle which met with an accident. Mr. Nanavati has further stated that, the Insurance Company which insured the vehicle had already paid Rs.50,000/- to the claimant and the vehicle was taken away by the insurance company. Therefore, further awarding of Rs.50,000/- towards loss or damage to the vehicle is unreasonable, and the amount in this respect awarded by the Tribunal in MACP No. 920 of 1999 be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties, and have gone through the records & findings of the Tribunal. We find no perversity in the findings reached by the Tribunal in awarding Rs.50,000/- towards cost of damage caused to the vehicle, over & above the amount of compensation paid by the Insurance Company. In this case the vehicle itself was taken away by the insurance company by paying Rs.50,000/- only. This appeal is meritless and deserves no consideration. The findings of the Tribunal is confirmed. In the result present appeal is dismissed. Ordered accordingly. No costs. [ BHAGWATI PRASAD, J ] [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn