Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Miraben Varghabhai (Varghabhai) Ven on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1047 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
MIRABEN VARGHABHAI (VARGHABHAI) VEN & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAULIN G PANDYA(3999) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") challenging the judgment and award dated 17.12.2021, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Palanpur District - Banaskantha (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.05 of 2019.
2) Heard Mr. R. P. Raval for the appellant. Perused the original record and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the original claimants - respondent nos.1 to 5 herein, that on 11.07.2018, deceased Varghabhai (Varghabhai) Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:15:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Shankarbhai Ven (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "deceased") was going to Varahi to Radhanpur on Activa bearing Reg. No.GJ-01-PQ-4314 as pillion rider, at that time, suddenly a car bearing Reg. No.RJ-14-CA-1802, driven rashly and negligently by its driver and dashed with the Activa from back side. As a result of which the deceased sustained severe fatal injuries which resulted into his death. Therefore, the original claimants have filed MAC Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the driver Rajeshkumar - respondent no.6 herein was not having effective driving license on the date of the accident and his driving license is valid only for driving "invalid carriage" vehicle and he was driving a normal vehicle. The word "invalid carriage" as per Section 2 (18) of the MV Act is specially designed and constructed vehicle. Hence, there is breach of policy proved on record and the learned Tribunal has committed error in fastening liability of the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is required to be exonerated in light of Section 5 of the Act. The learned Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation and hence requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Having heard the learned Advocate and going through the record it appears that the negligence and quantum are not in dispute only liability is disputed on the ground that on the date of accident though the driver of offending vehicle was having Invalid Carriage License he was driving normal vehicle. So far liability part is concerned in the said accident car and activa both are involved and Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:15:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined opponent no.1 is registered owner of the car and appellant is the insurer of the car involved in the accident. The car policy was in force at the time of the accident which is not disputed. The documents of ownership of car and activa are on record and the same are also not disputed. The defence qua driver was not holding proper license is concerned, if we peruse the judgment it appears that the opponent no.2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement at Exhibit 42, and denied the involvement of the vehicle and on the date of accident the driver of car was not holding effective license except these defence no any evidence was led to prove the said fact. Mere pleading is not sufficient to prove the said fact and even the Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the car nor he stepped in the witness box and in absence of any material or proof or fundamental breach of the policy the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated and in absence of any evidence the learned Tribunal has not committed any error to saddle liability of the Insurance Company. Therefore, merely taking defence is not enough to prove the said fact and the Insurance Company has to examine any independent witness form the Regional Transport Office or driver of the vehicle to prove the defence. As the claimants are third party they have nothing to do with invalid license. Hence, the learned Advocate for the appellant failed to point out any error committed by the learned Tribunal.
6) In view of above no interference is required as the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:15:36 IST 2025