Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Devuben Vinodbhai Vaghela on 20 February, 2021
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/FA/483/2020 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 483 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 483 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT)
NO. 2 of 2020
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 483 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
DEVUBEN VINODBHAI VAGHELA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 20/02/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
C/FA/483/2020 JUDGMENT
1. This First Appeal is filed by the appellant
- Insurance Company under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicle Act challenging the judgment
and award dated 13.9.2019 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.),
& 5th Additional District Court, Ahmedabad
(Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.561 of 2009.
2. It is the case of the on 23.11.2008, the
injured Devuben Vinodbhai Vaghela was
travelling in Auto Rickshaw bearing No.GJ1
BU4382 and the driver of the said Auto
Rickshaw was driving in full speed and in
rash and negligence manner, and at about 7.30
a.m. when they were passing opposite to the
Sola High Court Road, at that time, as the
driver suddenly applied break, the said
Rickshaw turned turtle and the Devuben
Vinodbhai Vaghela sustained serious bodily
injuries. The complaint was lodged in Sola
High Court Police Station vide First CR No.I
C/FA/483/2020 JUDGMENT
391/2008. It is further submitted in the
claim petition that the petitioner was doing
labour work and thereby she earned Rs.4,000/
p.m. Therefore, the petitioner claimed the
amount of Rs.2,00,000/ under different Heads
as compensation with interest at the rate of
12% from the respondents. The learned
Tribunal has held the appellant and
respondent No.3 being owner of the Auto
Rickshaw bearing No.GJ1BU4382 jointly and
severally liable for payment of compensation
of Rs.20,000/ to the claimants.
3. Heard Mr.Rathin P. Raval, learned advocate
for the appellant - Insurance Company and
Mr.Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for
the respondents No.1 and 2.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Rathin Raval appearing
for the appellant Insurance Company has
submitted that the appellant Insurance
Company is not liable to satisfy any award
beyond the statutory amount of Rs.6,000/ as
C/FA/483/2020 JUDGMENT
the insurance policy is an "Act only Policy"
and on the date of accident the driver of the
rickshaw did not have any permit. He has
further submitted that the learned Tribunal
has failed to apply the law relating to
permit in the present matter. He has referred
to Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act and
submitted that the claim petition requires to
be dismissed in absence of holding permit.
Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads
as under :
"Section 66 : Necessity for permits (1) No
owner of a motor vehicle shall use or
permit the use of the vehicle as a
transport vehicle in any public place
whether or not such vehicle is actually
carrying any passengers or goods save in
accordance with the conditions of a permit
granted or countersigned by a Regional or
State Transport Authority or any
prescribed authority authorising him the
use of the vehicle in that place in the
manner in which the vehicle is being used:
Provided that a stage carriage permit
shall, subject to any conditions that may
be specified in the permit, authorise the
use of the vehicle as a contract carnage:
Provided further that a stage carriage
permit may, subject to any conditions that
may be specified in the permit, authorise
the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage
either when carrying passengers or not:
C/FA/483/2020 JUDGMENT
Provided also that a goods carriage permit
shall, subject to any conditions that may
be specified in the permit, authorise the
holder fo use the vehicle for the carriage
of goods for or in connection with a trade
or business carried on by him."
5. Mr.Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for
the respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted that
the impugned order of the tribunal does not
require interference and the same is in
consonance with the facts as well as legal
proposition.
6. Heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and also perused the
relevant documents.
7. The tribunal, while assessing the liability
has observed in para 27 thus:
"27. Subsection (2) of Section 149 only
enables the insurance company to defend
itself in respect of the liability to pay
compensation on any of the grounds
mentioned in subsection (2) including
that there has been a contravention of the
condition excluding the vehicle being
driven by any person who is not duly
licensed. This bar on the face of it
operates on the person insured. As per the
principles as culled out by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, mere absence, fake or
C/FA/483/2020 JUDGMENT
invalid driving licence or
disqualification of the driver for driving
at the relevant time, are not in
themselves defences available to the
insurer against either the insured or the
third parties and to avoid its liability
towards insured, the insurer has to prove
that the insured was guilty of negligence
and failed to exercise reasonable care in
the matter of fulfilling the condition of
the policy regarding use of vehicles by
duly licensed driver or one who was not
disqualified to drive at the relevant
time. As such the insurance company will
have to establish that the insured was
guilty of an infringement or violation of
a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy
the Tribunal that such violation or
infringement on the part of the insured
was willful, if it has not been
established then the insurance company
cannot repudiate its statutory liability
under subsection (1) of Section 149."
8. After recording the necessary observations
as well as documentary evidence, the Tribunal
has arrived at fixing the compensation of
Rs.20,000/.
9. Having heard the learned advocate for the
respective parties and looking to the
meagerness of amount awarded by the Tribunal
to the tune of Rs.20,000/ in the judgment
and award dated 13.9.2019 passed by the
C/FA/483/2020 JUDGMENT
learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.),
& 5th Additional District Court, Ahmedabad
(Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.561 of 2009, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the present appeal.
10. The First Appeal is dismissed. Consequently
the civil applications are disposed of.
11. Record and Proceedings is ordered to be
returned back forthwith.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
K.K. SAIYED
