Gujarat High Court
Kamleshbhai Kunjbihari Sheth vs Narendrasinh Vrujlal Chandarana on 11 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4118/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4118 of 2009
==========================================================
KAMLESHBHAI KUNJBIHARI SHETH
Versus
NARENDRASINH VRUJLAL CHANDARANA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 11/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants - original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 13.2.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Limdi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.694 of 2000.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of accident i.e. 11-08-1999 when the appellant was driving the car bearing registration No. GJ-03-K-387, owned by the opponent No. 1, between 09:30 to 10:00 pm when the appellant reached near Satna Hotel on the National Highway No. 8 near Chotila one truck approached from other side with full lights. The appellant applied break but the car gone out of the control and turn turtle and the appellant had received serious injuries. Therefore, the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000-00 was filed Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4118/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined before the Ld. Tribunal which came to be dismissed. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the insurance company has taken up the premium for the legal liability of the paid driver. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has believed that the road accident took lace due to sole negligency of the Maruti car driver, but since the insurance company has purchased the risk of the paid driver, in view of Full Bench judgment in case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/o Late Laxmanbhai Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) Versus Kandla Dock Labour Board, 2022 (1) GLR 440, the learned Tribunal was required to pass necessary order against the owner and insurer of the Maruti car. Upon such submission, he prays to allow this appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Meena appearing for the respondent - insurance company would submit that no premium has been charged for the legal liability of the paid driver and in view of that, the owner and the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation for self negligency of the driver of the Maruti car and therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and award. Upon such submission, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the R & P.
6. In para 9 of the impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal believed that the road accident took place due Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4118/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined to sole negligency of the claimant, who was driver of the Maruti casr and was dazzled due to light of the vehicle coming from the opposite side and therefore, he could not control his vehicle, which capsized and resultantly, the claimant received the injuries.
7. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal believed that for the self negligency of the claimant, the owner and the insurance company of the Maruti car cannot be held liable to pay compensation.
8. Learned advocate for the appellant while accepting such finding that the claimant was sole negligency in causing the road accident, has relied upon the insurance policy at Exh.31 to submit that the insurance company has taken the premium of Rs.15/- for covering risk of legal liability of the driver. Therefore, in view of judgment of Valiben (supra), the owner and insurance company of the Maruti car cannot be held liable. Had the insurance policy at Exh.31 shown that premium of the driver has been taken and risk of the driver is purchased, then certainly, the claimant would be entitled to get compensation from his owner and insurer, but in the present case, the documentary evidence indicates that premium of Rs.15/- has been purchased for accident benefits for spouse and insured as per IMT 4 accident benefit for non fare passengers. The column under the head of Legal liability to driver stated is blank, which indicates that no premium has been taken up for the legal liability of the driver. In view of such circumstances, the submission canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Dave that for the self negligency of the claimant, his owner and insurer of Maruti Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4118/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined car are liable to pay compensation, as the insurance company has purchased the risk of the paid driver as per insurance policy at Exh.31 does not survive.
9. In view of above, this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment and award and accordingly, present First Appeal stands rejected.
10. R & P, if any, to be sent back to the concerned Court immediately.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:07:21 IST 2025