Gujarat High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Nasiruddin @ Nasirbhai ... on 23 February, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/238/2010 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 238 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Versus
NASIRUDDIN @ NASIRBHAI SIRAJUDDIN KURESHI & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAHESH BHAVSAR(1781) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR PARESH M DARJI(3700) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R)(67) for the Defendant(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 23/02/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment
and award dated 18.02.2009 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad
C/FA/238/2010 JUDGMENT
(Rural) in MACP No. 751/04, the insurance
company has preferred the present appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
2. The following noteworthy facts arise from the
appeal
2.1 That the accident took place on 06.03.2004
on Potal Sangam Road within the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal. The record indicates that
the original claimant was going on Honda
scooter bearing registration No. GJ01TC511
and when he reached Potal Sangam Road, the
truck bearing registration No. GJ4T4616 came
from opposite side being driven in rash and
negligent manner and dashed with scooter. The
original claimants received serious injuries.
The original claimants filed the present claim
petition under Section 166 of the Act and
claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/. The
original claimants adduced oral as well as
documentary evidence. The appellant insurance
company by filing the written statement at
exhibit 16, contended that the claimant was
not driving his vehicle carefully and denied
the fact that the accident occurred because of
the negligence on the part of the driver of
the truck. FIR lodged at exhibit 36,
disability certificate at exhibit 35 and
injury certificate at exhibit 32 were
considered and while partly allowing the claim
C/FA/238/2010 JUDGMENT
petition, the Tribunal assessed the disability
of the body as a whole of 10%. The Tribunal
after examining the evidence came to the
conclusion that the driver of the truck did
not possess a valid driving license. The
Tribunal after appreciating the evidence in
form of driving license at exhibit 51 issued
by RTO, Ahmedabad found that the validity for
transport vehicle was from 20.12.2000 to
19.12.2003 whereas the accident took place on
06.03.2004 and hence, the driving license did
not cover the date of the incident. The
Tribunal having considered the same while
partly allowing the appeal, awarded a sum of
Rs. 1,12,480/ with 7.5% interest p.a. Being
aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed by the appellant insurance company.
3. In the present appeal, it is contended by the
Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for the
for the appellant insurance company that in
absence of valid license, the insurance company
deserves to be exonerated. Upon reappreciation
of the evidence on record, the said plea raised
by the learned counsel for the appellant
deserves to be negatived.
4. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh
Kr. Singh in Civil Appeal No. 3047 of 2017, the
appellant is held jointly and severally liable
and therefore, the appellant Company is directed
C/FA/238/2010 JUDGMENT
to pay the awarded sum to the original claimants
and the appellant would be entitled to recover
the entire awarded sum from the owner of the
offending vehicle in this proceeding itself and
following the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Manuara Khatun (supra), the appellant
insurance company may file execution petition in
this proceeding itself.
5. The appeal is not entertained on merits and the
same stands dismissed with the aforesaid
direction. However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
