Gujarat High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Legal Heirs Of Decd. Kanjibhai ... on 8 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1104 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. KANJIBHAI BACHUBHAI TALPADA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Defendant(s) No.
1,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.6.1,3.6.2,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 08/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the appellant - original opponent No.4 against the impugned judgment and award dated 07.03.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.613 of 2009, whereby the Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jun 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 21:25:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandip C. Shah for the appellant-original opponent No.4 and learned advocate Mr.Vatsal Ruparel for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli for respondent Nos.1, 3.1 to 3.6, 3.6.1, 3.6.2 and 4. Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6.
3. Brief Facts narrated in the present First Appeal are as under:-
3.1 on 17.02.2009, deceased Kanjibhai Bachubhai Talpada was travelling in Truck bearing registration No.GJ-
7X-1424. At about 10.00 a.m. when the said truck reached near the place of accident i.e. Ahmedabad -Rajkot National Highway Road, near Reliance Petrol Pump, a truck bearing registration No.TN-28P-4954 dashed with the aforesaid truck. Resultantly, deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed. FIR was lodged against the driver of Truck No.GJ-7X-1424.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jun 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 21:25:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined 3.2 Legal heirs/representatives of deceased filed claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,57,833/- before the learned Tribunal. Opponent No.1 - owner of Truck No.GJ-7X-1424 though served, did not contest claim petition. Insurance Company of the said Truck appeared and filed a Written Statement at Ex.16. Opponent No.3- owner of Truck No.TN-28P-4954 though served, did not contest the claim petition. Insurance Company of the said Truck appeared and filed a Written Statement at Ex.18. Claimant examined himself at Ex.26 and produced documents such as complaint, Panchnama of the scene of accident, Inquest Panchnama, Postmortem Report and other documentary evidence in support of claim petition. After considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,90,300/- with interest at the rate of 8% to be recovered from opponent Nos.1, 3 and 4 jointly Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jun 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 21:25:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined and severally and claim petition against opponent No.2 came to be rejected.
3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, appellant - original opponent No.4 filed present First Appeal challenging the negligence attributed to the driver of truck bearing registration No.TN-28P-4954.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the FIR was filed against the driver of truck bearing registration No.GJ-7X-1424 who dashed from behind. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the Panchnama and FIR and erroneously held the driver of Truck bearing registration No.TN-28P-4954 to be negligent in the occurrence of accident.
4.1 Reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the appellant in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Sinitha reported in 2012 SAR (Civil) Page 32 Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jun 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 21:25:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined and submitted that it was open for opponent to prove that either claimant himself was negligent or other driver of vehicle was negligent in the happening of accident. In nutshell, challenge against impugned judgment and award is on the ground of negligence being attributed against the driver of truck bearing registration No.TN-28P-4954.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vatsal Ruparel for claimants has supported the judgment and award and submitted that the claim application was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the compensation has to be awarded on structured formula and the question of negligence need not be gone into.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials available on record. The question which is required to be considered in the present First Appeal is whether, when an application Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jun 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 21:25:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined for compensation filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is it open for the Insurance Company to challenge the award on the ground of attribution negligence? The issue is no more res-integra in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar reported 2007, it is held that grant of compensation under Section 163A of Act is on the basis of structured formula is in nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident.
8. In the case of Sunil kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the various other decisions on the question of negligence where the claim application is filed under Section 163A of the Act, has observed in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 which are reproduced hereunder:- Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jun 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 21:25:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined "8.From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time.
In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present First Appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jun 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 21:25:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined
10. Record and proceedings, if any, received, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal.
(D. M. DESAI,J) MANOJ Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jun 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 06 21:25:05 IST 2025