GLS LAW COLLEGE

NOVICE

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJAR

Mr. Jayesh Solanki

(PETITIONER)

V/S

Sankar Singh

(RESPONDENT)

APPEAL INVOKED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE

ACT, 1988

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

NAME :- Malhar Faldu

ROLL NO :- 122

SEMESTER :- 1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATION……………………………………………………… (3)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………… (4)

STATEMENTOF JURISDICTION….……………............................................... ( 5)

STATEMENT OF FACT………………………………………………………….(6)

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………. (8)

SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………….(9)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………. (11)

PRAYER OF RELIEF……………………………………………………………. (13)

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& And

() Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Gvot. Government

Hon’ble Honorable

I.e. That is

Ltd. Limited

No. Number

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

V/S Versus

Vol. Volume

www World Wide Web

Pvt. Private

Ed. Edition

3|Page
 INDEX OFAUTHORITY

CASES REFERED:-

• Sri Rajanna @ Raju v/s Sri Srinivas on 18 July, 2019

• Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010

BOOKS REFERED:-

• The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Bare Act

• Indian Penal Code- Bare Act

WEBSITES REFERRED:-

• www.lexinex.com (last visited on 11th October, 2021)

• www.judis.nic.in (last visited on 11th October, 2021)
• www.scconline.com (last visited on 11th October, 2021)
• www.indiankanoon.com(last visited on 11th October, 2021)

4|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE PRESENT PETITION BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF GUJAR, IN THE MATTER OF MR. JAYESH SOLANKI V/S SHANKAR
SINGH UNDER THE SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICAL ACT, 1988.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS.

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACT

• Indiva is one of the second largest country in the world in reference to the population.
With the increase in the population the vehicle in the country is increasing tremendously.
In the City of Ahmedpur there are more than 1cr registered vehicles.
• On, 4-7-2014
o Avantika minor girl aged 12 (Petitioner No. 2)
o Arvind her little brother aged 10 (Petitioner No. 3)
o And their father Mr. Jayesh Solanki aged 38 years Were coming to their village
Halol from Ahmedpur. They were riding the motor cycle No GUI 9168
(Petitioner No. 1).

• They met with an accident on the middle of the road with a tractor baring number
GJ1-K 2013 driven by Respondent. Due to that the front wheel of motor cycle was
separated from the body of the motor cycle, as a result the Petitioner’s fell down and
sustained injuries. They all were admitted to the nearest hospital at Halol. After medical
examination it was concluded that the Petitioner minors had multiple fractures on their
body. They had to undergo surgeries at Civil Hospital, Ahmedpur.

• The Petitioner father had severe head injuries, the Petitioner No. 1 was examined and it
was opined by Dr. Hitesh Shah Orthopedic surgeon that he had 50% permanent
disability. On further medical examination it was found by Dr. Shah that Petitioner No. 2
had 30% permanent disability and Petitioner No. 3 has 20% permanent disability.

• An F.I.R was lodged in Halol police station against the driver for offending tractor under
sec 279,337 and 338 of penal code, 1860. The Petitioner filed the claim petition before
the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Ahmedpur on 18.05.2015. He claimed compensation for
disability of himself and his children and stated his current income to be Rs 12,00,000/-
per annum of which he was earning Rs 3 Lacs from Carpenter Business and 9 Lacs from
Agriculture. He also produced Income Tax returns filed for AY 2011-12and 2012-13 and
2013-2014 all filed on 31.03.2015 showing his income from for years as Rs 10 Lacs, 12

6|Page
 Lacs and 14 Lacs Respectively. He owned a small piece of land of 3 Acre at Dholvia on
which he took crops twice a year.

• The Insurance Company from the side of the tractor produced a study conducted by the
forensic Engineers and scientists stating that the cases of the wheel of the motor cycle
coming off in an accident are very rare. The accidents do occur due to the wheel coming
off it is because of the rusting of the bolt, or the studs of the tyre of the motor cycle being
old, rusting of the axle of the wheel.

• The Tribunal after considering the facts, evidences produced on records by its decision
dated 16/08/2018 apportioned contributory negligence at 50% on the part of Petitioner
No. 1 who was riding the motorcycle and 50% on the driver of the tractor. The tribunal
awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 472,672 to Petitioner No. 2, Rs.1,68,938 to
Petitioner No. 3 and Rs. 1,22,250 to Petitioner No. 1 under various heads together with
the interest at the rate of 6% interest per annum.

• Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner’s filed an Appeal on
12.11.2018 before the High court of Gurjar, Ahmedpur for the enhancement of
compensation.

7|Page
 STATEMENT OF ISSUE

1. Whether there is any fault on the side of the petitioner?

2. Whether the appellant have the right to get more competitions than that was
awarded by the tribunal court?

8|Page
 SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether there is any fault on the side of the petitioner?

• According to the section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code:-
o Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC says that by driving negligently the
respondent has already endangered the life of the petitioners and causing
them grevious hurts, which amount to permanent disability of the
petitioners. And the insurance company from the side of the respondent
tells that the accident occur due to the wheel coming off it is because of
the rusting of the bolt, or the studs of the tyre of the motor cycle being
old, rusting of the axle of the wheel. In this even the insurance company
was not sure whether there is a rust in the bolt or studs or axle of the
wheel. The only nexus behind this is that the accident occurred due to the
fault of the petitioner as per the conceptual story made by the insurance
company. If the accident doesn’t occur whether the wheel of the vehicle
be removed is a matter of question.

2. Whether the appellant have the right to get more competitions than that was
awarded by the tribunal court?
• As per Article-21 of the constitution of india “ No person shall be deprived of his
life and personal liberty accept according to the procedure established by law”.
But the life and liberty of the petitioners were endangered just because of the
award given by the tribunal court was not satisfactory and what about the life of
the children whose whole life is standing outside the door the permanent disability
would always make them feel that they were not enough capable for doing any
thing in the society. The Petitioner No. 1 who is 50% disable cannot even fulfil
the basic needs of its family, his earnings would be sooner or later be zero. As per
the material facts the income of the petitioner before the accident was 14 lakhs but
after the accident it shows the downfall and as per calculation after 10-12 years

9|Page
his income would be nothing. Breaching of the fundamental right of the
constitution would not be accepted in the courts of law. And the right to get the
compensation is a complete right as per the Article-21 of the constitution of india.

10 | P a g e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether there is any fault on the side of the petitioner?
• 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.—
o Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or
negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any
other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.

• 337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—

o Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to
endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

• 338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—
o Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or
negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

• Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC says that by driving negligently the respondent has already
endangered the life of the petitioners and causing them grevious hurts, which amount to
permanent disability of the petitioners. And the insurance company from the side of the
respondent tells that the accident occur due to the wheel coming off it is because of the
rusting of the bolt, or the studs of the tyre of the motor cycle being old, rusting of the axle of
the wheel. In this even the insurance company was not sure whether there is a rust in the bolt
or studs or axle of the wheel. The only nexus behind this is that the accident occurred due to
the fault of the petitioner as per the conceptual story made by the insurance company. If the
accident doesn’t occur whether the wheel of the vehicle be removed is a matter of question.

11 | P a g e
2. Whether the appellant have the right to get more competitions than that was awarded
by the tribunal court?
• The doctrine of legitimate expectation is attracted here. It is not a legal right. It is an
expectation of benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a promise or
established practice. The term ‘established practice’ refers to a regular, consistent
predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision making authority. And
the expectation of the petitioner is legitimate, legal and reasonable before the
adjudicating authority. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is not reasonable and
legitimate. As per Article-21 of the constitution of india “ No person shall be deprived of
his life and personal liberty accept according to the procedure established by law”. But
the life and liberty of the petitioners were endangered just because of the award given by
the tribunal court was not satisfactory and what about the life of the children whose
whole life is standing outside the door the permanent disability would always make them
feel that they were not enough capable for doing any thing in the society. The Petitioner
No. 1 who is 50% disable cannot even fulfil the basic needs of its family, his earnings
would be sooner or later be zero. As per the material facts the income of the petitioner
before the accident was 14 lakhs but after the accident it shows the downfall and as per
calculation after 10-12 years his income would be nothing. Breaching of the fundamental
right of the constitution would not be accepted in the courts of law. And the right to get
the compensation is a complete right as per the Article-21 of the constitution of india.
• So the petitioner have the right to get more compensation from the respondent as per the
Article-21 of the Constitution of India.

12 | P a g e
 PRAYER OF RELIEF

wherefore in the lights of facts presented, issued raised, arguments

advanced and authorities citied, the petitioner humbly pray before this

Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

I. The petition should be allowed.

II. The compensation of Rs. 14 Lakhs should be given with 12% p/a.

Or pass any order that the court may deem fit in the light of equality,

justice and good conscience and for this act of kindness of your lordship

the petitioner shall as duty bound ever pray.

SD/- _____________________
(Counsel for the respondent)

13 | P a g e