Gujarat High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. ... vs Arunbhai Sampatbhai Vasava on 20 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD
Versus
ARUNBHAI SAMPATBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 20/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, at the instance of the insurance company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 19th February 2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Main, Narmada at Rajpipla in MACP number 197 of 2013. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 holding them entitled to seek recovery of a sum of Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Rs.8,23,000/- from the original opponents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization, with proportionate costs.
2. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant -Insurance Company and the grounds raised in the appeal memo, this Court vide order dated 6th July 2015 has admitted the appeal. In the interim application for stay, this Court had directed the applicant Insurance Company to deposit the entire award amount with the concerned Tribunal and had issued further directions for the release and disbursement of 20% of such deposited amount in favour of the original claimants and the remaining 80% of the amount was directed to be invested in a long-term fixed deposit with any nationalized bank in the name of claimants initially for a period of 3 years, which was further directed to be renewed from time to time till the final disposal of the captioned appeal.
3. Learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim has entered appearance on behalf of the original claimants- respondent Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined nos.1.1 to 1.3 and Mr. Jigar G Gadhvi, learned advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.2- owner of the insured vehicle. With the able assistance of the learned advocate on record, the appeal was finally heard.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Rushang Mehta appearing for the appellant Insurance Company has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly disputing the liability of the Insurance Company to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants. The attention of this Court was invited to the manner in which the accident was reported. Learned advocate had submitted that in fact the deceased was an unauthorized passenger on the insured vehicle. It was also contended that the driver of the insured vehicle has also unfortunately succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. He was not holding any valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. The attention of this Court was invited to the written statement filed by the Insurance Company at Exhibit.28. It was further submitted that considering the nature of the vehicle involved which is a tractor, even the RC book produced on record clearly suggests that except for the driver no person was permitted to Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined travel on the tractor. Despite aforesaid defence being raised, the Tribunal has failed to frame a specific issue as regards the liability of the Insurance Company. It was further submitted that in the absence of any issue being framed, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in dealing with the aforesaid aspect. The attention of this Court was invited to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal in this regard. It was submitted that the Tribunal has treated it as a case of a gratuitous passenger and by following the principles laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited versus Girvarnath and others reported in 2007 ACJ 613, the Tribunal has treated the deceased as a third party and has fixed the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. In this regard, the learned advocate has placed reliance upon the unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited versus Vikramsinh Jadhav and others rendered in First Appeal No.3622 of 2007 dated 7 th August 2023. Inviting my attention to the relevant observations, the learned advocate has submitted that the Court after considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Brij Mohan reported in AIR 2007 SC 1971 has held that no statutory liability is enjoined on the owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods vehicle and hence the Insurance Company would not be liable thereof. Learned advocate has therefore urged this Court to allow the appeal and to exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the original claimants.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Kaival Patel appearing for respondent No.2 -the owner of the insured vehicle, has forcefully argued that the Tribunal has rightly held the appellant- Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation in the facts of the case and the evidence brought on record. Learned advocate had mainly relied upon the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal in this regard. Reliance was placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kalavatiben Motisingh Divera versus Kamalsingh Chandrasingh Parmar reported in 2023 0 AIJEL HC 247510. The attention of this Court was invited to the relevant observations. It was Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined submitted that even in a case considering the deceased who was in fact a laborer on the tractor, the Court has referred to Rule 122 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and has held that the said rule specifies that no person can be carried in the goods carriage, provided the owner or the hirer or bona fide employee of the owner or hirer of the vehicle, carried free of charge. The Court has therefore held that the Rule permits a bona fide employee of the owner to travel on the goods carriage. The Court has further considered the second proviso to Rule 122 to hold that the seating capacity would have no bearing to the policy placed on record as the Rule permits the person to travel in a goods vehicle. Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case, learned advocate has submitted that admittedly the deceased was traveling as a laborer on the tractor which was used for agriculture purposes. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited versus Kalabhai Bachubhai Parmar reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL HC 231812 to contend that even in a case where the claimant was traveling on a tractor as a laborer, considering the fact that the tractor had turned turtle because of the rash and negligent driving of the Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined driver of the tractor, the Court has treated the case of the claimant in the position of a third party who has been injured due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor. Considering the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case which are almost similar, learned advocate has urged this Court to treat the deceased as a third party. In view of the undisputed fact that the policy was in force as on the date of accident, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in holding the appellant- Insurance Company liable towards payment of compensation to the claimants. He has therefore, urged this Court to dismiss the present First Appeal.
6. Mr. Hakim learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1.1 to 1.3 - original owners has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company. It was submitted that on the aspect of holding of effective and valid driving is concerned, learned advocate has submitted that considering the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal has rightly placed onus on the appellant- Insurance Company to establish their defence beyond reasonable doubt. In absence Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined of any RTO Officer being examined as witness or any documentary evidence supporting their case of absence of driving licence at the time accident, the Tribunal has rightly not entertain their defence. It was further submitted that deceased was engaged as labourer as can be gathered from the evidence of the claimants. The nature of vehicle involved is a tractor which was used for agricultural purpose. Keeping in mind the aforesaid circumstances established on record, the Tribunal has rightly treated the case of the deceased as third party for the purpose of fixing the liability of Insurance Company. Alternatively, learned advocate has submitted that the claimant may not suffer because of the inter-se dispute between the insurer and the Insurance Company as regards the existence of a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. He has therefore urged to pass appropriate directions of pay and recovery in the facts of the case.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have also carefully considered their arguments in light of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal. I have also perused the relevant evidence on record Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined in light of the judgments relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 -owner of the insured vehicle. The short question which arises for consideration of this Court in the present appeal is as to whether the Tribunal committed any error in the facts of the case and the evidence on record, in holding the appellant- Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation, while adjudicating the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988?
8. At the outset, it would be appropriate to take into consideration the manner in which the accident had taken place. Admittedly, the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor, the tractor had turned turtle; as a result, the deceased had sustained grievous injuries and had succumbed to death. The original claimants are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased who have preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Considering the overall evidence on record, the Tribunal while examining the issue of negligence has found the driver of the tractor solely negligent towards the occurrence of the accident. There is no dispute to the fact Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined that the appellant Insurance Company had issued a policy in respect of the insured vehicle which was in force at the time of the accident. However, the appellant- Insurance Company has disputed their liability mainly on the ground of breach of vital terms and conditions of the policy. As regards the issue of non holding of valid and effective driving licence is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the original claimants, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Considering the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, it has been held that the insurer is entitled to raise defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or 166 of the Act, inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. This includes the issue of an invalid driving license of the driver. However, the same has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Thus, the burden is placed upon the insurer to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and had failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding the use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver. The Court has Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined further observed that the Insurance Company is not only required to establish the aforesaid defenses raised in the proceeding but is also required to establish "breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle. The burden of proof wherefore would be on them. Thus, in light of the aforesaid principles, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in arriving at a conclusion that the Insurance Company had failed to establish their defence as well as have also failed to establish the breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle which had contributed to the occurrence of the accident.
9. This brings me to the second contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company disputing their liability on the ground that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger on the insured vehicle. On careful consideration of the RC book produced on record, it is evident that the nature of the vehicle involved is a tractor. The seating capacity indicated in the RC book is of one person. Thus, it has been established on record that there was no permission of any other person to be carried on the tractor. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for respondent Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined no.2- owner of the insured vehicle, in view of Rule 122 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, the deceased being a labourer can be treated as a bona-fide employee and therefore shall be entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Rule 122. The second proviso as interpreted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kalavatiben Motisingh Divera (supra) deals with the permissibility of the total number of persons to be carried in the vehicle as noted. Further, the proviso to the sub-rule shows that it would not be applicable in cases where integral seating arrangements providing a reasonable comfortable seating space for each person have been made in the goods carriage for more than the number specified in the second proviso. As can be gathered from the evidence in the nature of FIR at Exh. 34 and the deposition of the claimant at Exhibit 24, the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and was engaged as a labourer.
10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company has objected to the findings of the Tribunal by treating it as case of gratuitous passenger. It would be appropriate to consider the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined case of Kalabhai Bachubhai Parmar(supra) where the victim was occupant of tractor as a labourer who has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim application holding that there was violation of terms of the agreement by allowing gratuitous passengers to travel however, had issue directions against the insurer to pay the amount and then to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the aforesaid directions has approached in appeal before this Court. The Court upon appreciation of evidence on record has held that though entry of claimant on the vehicle was in violation of terms of the policy, however the moment it has transpired on record that due to negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor, the claimants had fallen down on the street resulting into injuries, he is position was to be treated as "third party". Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case which are almost similar, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in holding the appellant- Insurance Company liable to pay amount of compensation.
Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1130/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal being without any merits, is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company with the concerned Tribunal is hereby directed to be released and disbursed in favour of the original claimants in terms of the impugned judgment and award. Let the aforesaid exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. With these observations, the appeal stands dismissed of. The record and proceedings are directed to be sent back forthwith to the concerned Tribunal with the writ of this judgment.
sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:53 IST 2026