Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Payalben Sureshbhai Harijan on 3 December, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1915/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1915 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
PAYALBEN SURESHBHAI HARIJAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4,5,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN) Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.03.2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 3 rd Additional District Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1062 of 2007, whereby the claim petition of the claimants, is partly allowed to the extent of Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:18:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1915/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Rs.8,53,500/- together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the United India Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the captioned appeal.
2. Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by overlooking the facts and evidence produced on record. It is further submitted that the deceased and other passengers were travelling in the Jeep bearing registration no.GJ-17-C-3239 (hereinafter referred to as "the vehicle") on hire and reward basis. Pertinently, the policy was packaged policy of a private car, and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, considering the breach of the conditions of the policy.
2.1 It is further submitted that FIR being I-C.R. No.113 of 2007 was lodged with Devgadh Baria Police Station for the offences under Sections 279, 304A, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"). In the FIR, the complainant has clearly stated that the vehicle was engaged on hire and reward basis and the passengers, were travelling to attend the wedding ceremony; for playing the band. Clearly, there was a clear breach of the conditions contained in the policy. The FIR also suggests that all the passengers including the deceased, had hired the vehicle. While inviting the attention of this Court to the oral evidence at Exh.24 of the claimant no.1, it is submitted that in her cross-examination, it is clearly stated that the deceased was travelling with the band. It is submitted that when the passengers were travelling on hire and reward basis, the learned Judge, ought not to have held responsible the Insurance Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:18:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1915/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Company jointly and severally to pay the compensation. Alternatively, it is submitted that if the appeal is allowed, applying the principle of "pay and recover", the Insurance Company, may be directed to recover the amount of compensation from the driver and the owner of the vehicle.
2.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manuara Khatun & Ors vs Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors reported in 2017 (4) SCC 796. Though the Insurance Company was exonerated, the Apex Court, applying the principle of "pay and recover", directed the Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum and liberty was reserved to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle in the execution proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that applying the above referred principle, the Insurance Company, may be further allowed to recover the amount from the driver and the owner of the vehicle, in accordance with law.
2.3 Besides, no other submissions are made. Advancing the above referred limited submission, it is prayed that appeal be partly allowed.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Mohsin Hakim, learned advocate has supported the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the claimants are concerned with the amount of compensation to be paid either by the Insurance Company, and/or, the driver and the owner; however, the claimants may not be deprived of the amount of compensation, for which, they are waiting since the year-2007. It is, therefore, urged that the appeal, does not warrant interference and may be rejected.
4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the record and proceedings of Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:18:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1915/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined M.A.C.P. No.1062 of 2007. Having given thoughtful consideration to the evidence on record, this Court, is of the considered opinion that no error has been committed by the Tribunal and the appeal does not warrant interference for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
5. Discernibly, the deceased was returning home from village- Mandav on 28.05.2007, and while returning back, the vehicle, dashed with a tree. As a result, the deceased had sustained fatal injuries. Claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.1062 of 2007 was filed by the claimants namely; the wife, three children and the parents. The Tribunal, formulated the following issues and were answered accordingly:
Sr. Issues Answer
No.
1. Whether it is proved that the deceased Affirmative sustained injuries and died on account of rashness or negligence in driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident?
2. What amount, if any, the claimants are entitled As per final order.
to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?
3 What order? As per final order.
6. The Tribunal, while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.8,53,500/- and the opponents were directed to pay jointly and severally the awarded amount to the claimants, together with interest and proportionate costs. As stated herein-above, being aggrieved the captioned appeal.
7. It is a specific stand of the Insurance Company that the policy, was a packaged policy of a private car and as per the conditions it prohibited use of the vehicle for hire and reward. It is submitted that Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:18:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1915/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined there were in-built limitations indicated as to the use. The policy covered the use of the vehicle for any purpose, other than, inter alia,
(i) hire or reward. As per the FIR, the vehicle was taken on hire and reward for the purpose of playing band at a village Dabhva, and the policy, was restricted only for the personal use. Breach having committed of the conditions, the Insurance Company, would not be liable to pay the compensation. It will be the sole responsibility of the owner and the driver to pay the compensation. The said stand, is not in sync with the evidence available on record, inasmuch as, in the examination-in-chief of the claimant no.1, it is categorically stated that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, the driver and the deceased, were cousins and were returning back after attending a social function. In the cross-examination, it is stated that the deceased, had travelled with the band members.
8. At this stage, relevant would be the contents of the FIR. FIR, was lodged on the next day of the accident, clearly stating that the complainant had hired the vehicle and the opponent no.1 was the driver and was accompanied by Vikrambhai Rimabhai and the deceased. Besides them, there were other five persons. It is further recorded in the FIR that the complainant and the other five persons were dropped at the village and while returning, the passengers travelling were; the driver-Rajubhai Kesharsinh Solanki, Vikrambhai Rimabhai and the deceased. Therefore, the vehicle was hired by the complainant and the persons, who were to perform the band, were dropped at the village-Dabhva and the driver, the deceased and one another returned. While returning, two passengers have sustained fatal injures. The said aspect, has not been dislodged by the Insurance Company, inasmuch as, in the cross-examination of the claimant no.1, nothing has emerged. The Insurance Company, has neither examined Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:18:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1915/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined the complainant nor the driver.
9. Relevant also would be the written statement filed by the driver and the owner, wherein, in Para-8, in response to Para-10 of the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased, was cousin brother and while returning back, the accident has taken place. However, it is specifically denied that the deceased, was travelling on hire and reward basis. In fact, he was travelling and was known and related to the driver. The said aspect, has remained uncontroverted, either in the documentary evidence or in the oral evidence on record. The Tribunal, while deciding the issue no.1, has therefore, rightly observed regarding the negligence of the opponent no.1. The Tribunal has taken note of the averments made in the reply of the opponent nos.1 and 2, substantiating the fact that the deceased was not a fare paid passenger, but had boarded the vehicle, as the driver was known to him. The Insurance Company i.e. opponent no.3, has not been able to dispute. In fact, it is fairly conceded by Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company that the said evidence has remained uncontroverted.
10. In view of the above discussion, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and in absence of any perversity pointed out, the appeal, does not warrant interference and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. Since the appeal is not entertained and the amount has been deposited with the nationalized bank, the Tribunal will be at liberty to disburse the same in favour of the claimants, after due and proper verification.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:18:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1915/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
12. Record and proceedings, be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA/SFS/04/12 Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 12 23:18:09 IST 2025