Hdfc Ergo General Insurance ... vs Baloch Faridabanu Kamalkhan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2361 Guj

          C/FA/2793/2017                                     ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                   R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2793 of 2017
                                With
             CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
                  In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2793 of 2017
================================================================
          HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
                            Versus
            BALOCH FARIDABANU KAMALKHAN & 3 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR HR PRAJAPATI(674) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                            Date : 15/02/2021
                             ORAL ORDER

1. The present appeal is filed challenging the impugned judgment and

award dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(Main), Patan in MACP No.166 of 2011.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Maulik Shelat for the appellant has submitted

that the claimants have filed MACP No.166 of 2011 claiming

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained out of vehicular

accident from the opponents. Out of opponents, opponent no.1 is driver

owner of the Jeep having RTO registration No.GJ-15-C-9705 (hereinafter

referred to as "Jeep"). The opponent no.2 (original appellant) is Insurance

C/FA/2793/2017 ORDER

Company of Jeep No.GJ-15-C-9705, the opponent no.3 is owner of Mini

Truck having RTO registration No.GJ-8-Z-78 (hereinafter referred to as

"truck") and the opponent no.4 is Insurance Company of Mini Truck

No.GJ-8-Z-8.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Maulik Shelat for the appellant has submitted

that the tribunal found that the drivers of vehicles of Jeep bearing RTO

registration No.GJ-15-C-9705 and driver of Mini Truck bearing No.GJ-8-

Z-78 negligent upto 50:50% in the same ratio composite negligent is

directed to be considered.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Tanmay Karia appearing for the opponent

no.4 has submitted that the appeal has not been preferred challenging the

award passed by the learned tribunal dated 22.03.2017 and the award has

been challenged by the present appellant i.e. Insurance Company - HDFC

Ergo on the ground that the tribunal has erred by raising the following

contentions:-

(i) that the claimant insured Jeep cannot be termed as third party as per

the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex

Court.

(ii) The tribunal has erred in not considering that the policy in question

issued by appellant was liability only policy not covering risk of third

party and the appellant could not be held liable to pay compensation to

C/FA/2793/2017 ORDER

the injured claimant who was occupant in Jeep.

5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties,

this Court is of the opinion that 50% liability, which is imposed on the

appellant-Insurance Company comes to approximately Rs.26,000/- only.

Accordingly, looking to the meagerness of the amount of liability

apportioned to the appellant, this Court is not inclined to entertain the

present appeal and the same is hereby rejected.

6. In view of the order passed in the First Appeal, Civil Application

does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. Interim relief,

if any, stands vacated.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) ABHISHEK