Gujarat High Court
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Divaliben Mangalbhai Chavda on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 307 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 311 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 308 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2021
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 308 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 310 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 312 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
DIVALIBEN MANGALBHAI CHAVDA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the
Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,6
MR TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2.1,2.2,2.3,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/12/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] Since all these appeals are filed assailing the impugned common judgment and award arising from a common accident, they are being heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and for the sake of convenience and brevity, facts from First Appeal No.307 of 2022 are taken.
Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
[2.0] By way of present group of First Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act"), the appellant - The United India Insurance Company Limited - original opponent No.3 has assailed the impugned common judgment and award dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.27, Ahmedabad (for short "learned Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to partly allow the claim petitions by holding the driver of the Jeep No.GJ-01-BK-4972 solely negligent for the accident.
[3.0] The details of claim petition and its corresponding First Appeal as well as the issue raised therein are as under:
Sr. First MACP No. Issue raised
No. Appeal No.
1. 307/2022 1184 of 2001 Employee of the vehicle is not covered Illegal use of government vehicle As the deceased was aged 54 years, prospective income ought to have been considered at 15% instead of 30%
2. 308/2022 292 of 2002 Employee of the vehicle is not covered Claimant is the owner of the vehicle involved as per the case of the claimant and hence, cannot claim against his own insurer Claimant is the judgment debtor
3. 310/2022 1182 of 2001 Employee of the vehicle is not covered Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Illegal use of government vehicle As the deceased was aged 50 years, prospective income ought to have been considered at 15% instead of 30%
4. 311/2022 1180 of 2001 Employee of the vehicle is not covered Illegal use of government vehicle
5. 312/2022 1181 of 2001 Employee of the vehicle is not covered Illegal use of government vehicle Claimant is the driver of the offending vehicle and hence, he cannot claim compensation as he is the judgment debtor [4.0] The brief facts of respective claim petitions is that on 20.12.2000 at about 1.30 p.m., claimants and deceased were going from Ahmedabad to Delhi sitting in Jeep No.GJ-01-BK-4972 and when the said jeep was passing near Kanuvada, near Shrinathji Hotel, one Ox came on road and as the offending jeep was in full speed, it got turtled and went into pit and thus, the accident occurred causing grievous injuries to the passengers travelling in the offending jeep. That, on account of the said accident, two persons died and other persons sustained serious injuries. Pursuant thereto, the legal heirs and representatives of deceased persons as well as injured claimants filed respective claim petitions and after appreciating the evidence led, the learned Tribunal was pleased to hold the driver of offending jeep to be sole negligent and partly allowed the claim petitions. Being aggrieved with the finding of the learned Tribunal holding the driver, owner and insurance company Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined of the offending Jeep to be sole negligent, the appellant herein - insurance company has filed the present batch of First Appeals.
[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval appearing for the appellant herein - original opponent No.3 has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the appellant - insurance company with 100% liability for the accident. He has submitted that the appellant - insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as the deceased persons and claimants were travelling in the offending jeep unauthorizedly as the offending jeep was a government (Charm Udyog Mandli) Vehicle for their personal work and at that time the unfortunate accident took place. The ownership of the offending vehicle was of government mandali and same is established from the deposition of the claimants. He has further submitted that even the claimants have misled the learned Tribunal by submitting contradictory pleadings. Initially the claim of the claimants was that the offending vehicle was owned by the government mandali and in their evidence and cross-examination, they have supported the said version. The case of the appellant - insurance company before the learned Tribunal from day one was that the claimants and deceased were in unauthorized use of the government vehicle and even as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal & Ors. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428, employees are not covered if they are unauthorizedly travelling in a government vehicle.
[5.1] He has further submitted that after two decades, during the pendency of claim petitions, the original claimants have changed their stand and came up with a new case that the owner of vehicle Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined is one Natubhai Makanji Chavda (deceased in First Appeal No.308 of 2022) and he was also impleaded as owner of the offending vehicle vide order dated 26.12.2019 passed below application Exh.142 and totally a different story and version is placed. He has submitted that even if the said version is believed then also the appellant - insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and even otherwise the claimants, who are driver (FA No.308/2022) and owner (FA No.312/2022) of offending vehicle are not entitled to claim any compensation and that too when they are the judgment debtors, even if the order of pay and recover is passed in favor of the claimants. He has requested to slice down the compensation awarded under other heads also as exorbitant compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Hence, he has requested to allow the present First Appeals.
[6.0] Learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak appearing for the original claimants has opposed the present group of First Appeals on the ground that Natvar M. Chavda is the owner of the offending vehicle and therefore, question does not arise to believe the fact that the claimants were unauthorizedly using the government vehicle. Further, he has submitted that even in case of breach of any condition also, insurance company is duty bound to satisfy the award. As no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned judgment and award, he has requested to dismiss the present group of First Appeals.
[7.0] Having heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and perusing the record, it prima facie appears that the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal was that offending vehicle was a government vehicle and they were travelling in the Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined same and alleged accident took place. After recording the evidence, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to consider the claim petitions of claimants and awarded the compensation by holding the insurance company of the offending jeep to be sole negligent for payment of compensation to the original claimants.
[7.1] If the subsequent version of the claimants of MACP No.1184/2001 that Natvar M. Chavda was the driver of offending vehicle, who was impleaded pending the claim petitions after two decades, is accepted then also, such a stand is contrary to the pleading and claimants have tried to put up a new case and prima facie, it appears that there is variance between pleading and proof. Even though if the said argument of claimants is accepted then also, said Natvar M. Chavda and the offending vehicle were insured with appellant - insurance company and in that event also, as the fundamental breach of insurance policy is proved, as the government vehicle was used by the claimants and the deceased persons for their person use and joy ride, which is admitted and undisputed fact, the insurance company is required to be exonerated. It is needless to say that if any contract does exist, same is a contract between insured and insurer and third party has nothing to do with the same and order of pay and recover is required to be passed and liability is fastened on the insurance company in light of the order of 'pay and recover'. Even otherwise, the coordinate Bench of this Court in the proceedings of Civil Application No.2 of 2021 in First Appeal No.308/2022, vide order dated 08.09.2022, has been pleased to issue directions to refund the 30% amount to the insurance company. Even, as the employee of the government vehicle is not covered and illegal use of government vehicle was proved considering the contradictory Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined pleadings, if the insurance company is exonerated, in that event, the owner becomes the judgment debtor. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the judgment debtor. Hence, First Appeal No.308 of 2022 deserves to be allowed.
[7.2] So far as First Appeal No.312/2022 (MACP No.1181/2001) is concerned, claimant therein is the driver of the offending vehicle and thus, one of the tort feasors and a judgment debtor and therefore, a tort feasor cannot claim compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act. Hence, First Appeal No.312 of 2022 also deserves to be allowed and impugned common judgment and award is required to be quashed and set aside qua the appellant herein - insurance company.
[7.3] So far as First Appeal No.307/2022 (MACP No.1184/2001) is concerned, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in assessing future prospective income of the deceased at 30%, which is required to be considered at 15% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, as the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident and therefore, considering net monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- and deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenditure, as the deceased was having wife and two sons, the amount would come to Rs.3,333/- and adding 15% towards future prospective income i.e. 15% of 3333 = Rs.499.95 i.e. Rs.500/-, the amount towards future loss of dependency per month would be Rs.3833/- (Rs.3333 + 500) and as the deceased was aged 54 years, applying multiplier of 11, future loss of dependency would be Rs.5,05,956/- (Rs.3833 x 12 x Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
11). So far as amount under the head of loss of consortium is concerned, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. vs. M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium and so far as other heads are concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, same are not required to be interfered with. Hence, now the claimants of MACP No.1184/2001 are entitled to recover the compensation as detailed herein below:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this
Tribunal Court
Future loss of Rs.5,71,956/- Rs.5,05,956/-
dependency
Loss of Consortium Rs.44,000/- Rs.48,400/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/-
Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/-
Total Compensation Rs.6,49,000/- Rs.5,87,356/-
Hence, amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be reduced to Rs.5,87,356/-.
[7.4] So far as First Appeal No.310/2022 (MACP No.1182/2001) is concerned, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in assessing future prospective income of the deceased at 30%, which is required to be considered at 15% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (Supra), as the Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident and therefore, considering net monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3500/- and deducting 1/4th amount towards personal expenditure, as the deceased was having wife and three sons, the amount would come to Rs2625/- and adding 15% towards future prospective income i.e. 15% of 2625 = Rs.393.75 i.e. Rs.394/-, the amount towards future loss of dependency per month would be Rs.3019/- (Rs.2625 + 394) and as the deceased was aged 50 years, applying multiplier of 13, future loss of dependency would be Rs.4,70,964/- (Rs.3019 x 12 x
13). So far as amount under the head of loss of consortium is concerned, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Jana Bai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade (Supra), the claimants are entitled to get Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium and so far as other heads are concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, same are not required to be interfered with. Hence, now the claimants of MACP No.1182/2001 are entitled to recover the compensation as detailed herein below:
Heads Awarded by Reassessed by this
Tribunal Court
Future loss of Rs.5,32,500/- Rs.4,70,964/-
dependency
Loss of Consortium Rs.44,000/- Rs.48,400/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/-
Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/-
Total Compensation Rs.6,09,500/- Rs.5,52,364/-
Hence, amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is required to be reduced to Rs.5,52,364/-.
Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
[7.5] So far as First Appeal No.311 of 2022 (MACP No.1180 of 2001) is concerned, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is Rs.1,58,000/- and no interference is required on the ground of smallness of amount. Hence, First Appeal No.311 of 2022 stands disposed of on the ground of smallness of amount. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and question of law raised in this First Appeal. Since the First Appeal is disposed of only on the contention of monetary value being small, principle of res judicata shall not be applied to any other proceedings arising from the same road accident or same judgment and award.
[8.0] As discussed above, the insurance company has been exonerated from the liability however, the insurance company shall firstly pay the compensation to the original claimants of MACP Nos.1184/2001, 1182/2001 and 1180/2001 and then shall recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 83 has observed as under:
"83. Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub- section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with sub- section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence but it is Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading.
102- the summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:
(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles.
The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act.
Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
(vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal.
Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub- section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined of the victims."
The said authority is also followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court once again in the case of Shamanna vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 wherein, considering sections 147 and 149 of the MV Act, third party victim of the motor vehicle accident is passed and it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy the award and principle of "pay and recover" is summarized wherein it is held that if the driver had no valid driving license and that there was breach of policy condition, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal of 'pay and recover'. If the insurance company has paid any amount then mode of recovery is also provided and insurance company has a liberty to initiate proceeding before the executing Court concerned, if dispute is between the insurer and the owner. Herein, the claimant is a third party and he has nothing to do with the said terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anu Bhanvara and Others vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2020) 20 SCC 632; Sunita & Ors. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. as well as in the case of Rama Bai vs. M/s. Amit Minerals reported in 2025 INSC 1162, the insurance company is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle by filing appropriate proceeding.
[8.1] Further, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Nagendra vs. New India Insurance Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Co. Ltd. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2297, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has re-affirmed the social welfare intent behind the MV Act. The principle or order of "To Pay and Recover"
embodies judicial empathy ensuring victims are not left uncompensated due to dispute between owner and insurer. At the same time, considering the contractual accountability, owner who breaches the condition of insurance policy cannot escape financial responsibility as insurers retain the right to recover paid sum to claimant. The dual balance of justice for victim and fairness for insurers strenghthens integrity of Motor Vehicles Accident Compensation system.
[9.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, First Appeal Nos.308/2022 and 312/2022 are allowed and the impugned common judgment and award dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside qua the appellant - insurance company. First Appeal No.307 of 2022 (MACP No.1184/2001) is partly allowed and the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs.5,87,356/- whereas First Appeal No.310/2022 (MACP No.1182/2001) is also partly allowed and the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs.5,52,364/- and First Appeal No.311 of 2022 (MACP No.1180 of 2001) is disposed of on the ground of smallness of amount.
[10.0] As the appellant - insurance company has already deposited the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.27, Ahmedabad in compliance of the impugned common judgment and award dated 20.07.2021, the learned Tribunal is directed to refund the difference amount i.e. Rs.61,644/- (Rs.6,49,000 - Rs.5,87,356) in First Appeal No.307/2022 (MACP No.1184/2001) and Rs.57,136/-
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/307/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
(Rs.6,09,500 - Rs.5,52,364) in First Appeal No.310/2022 (MACP No.1182/2001) to the appellant - insurance company. The learned Tribunal thereafter shall disburse the reassessed compensation in favour of the original claimants through RTGS, after proper verification. The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned advocate for the claimants to the Nazir Department of the learned Tribunal concerned. The Court fees, if any, payable by the claimants on compensation be deducted from the said amount and the remaining amount of compensation be disbursed in favour of the claimants on due verification within a period of two weeks thereafter.
[11.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, also shall stand disposed of accordingly.
[12.0] It is made clear that the appellant - insurance company shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle for the reasons recorded hereinabove.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:16:07 IST 2025