New India Assurance Company ... vs Sumatba Balvantsinh @ Baldevsinh ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1075 Guj

           C/FA/91/2012                                            JUDGMENT



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 91 of 2012

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 COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER
                           Versus
      SUMATBA BALVANTSINH @ BALDEVSINH JADEJA & 7 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
==========================================================
    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
                       Date : 22/01/2021
                       ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhuj­Kutch in MACP no.623 of 2006, the appellant - insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

        C/FA/91/2012                                                JUDGMENT




2.   Following             noteworthy       facts       emerge          from         the
     record of the appeal:­


     Suffice          it    to   note      that        one    Balvantsinh                @
     Baldevsinh             Ranjitsinh            Jadeja           died        in        a
     vehicular             accident         which           took        place          on
     23.9.20063,            wherein       it      is    alleged         that         the

deceased was a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ­12 AP­3671. As per the record, when the said vehicle reached near the place of accident, a stray dog came in between and the rider - respondent no.1 herein applied sudden brake because of which he lost control over his vehicle and both the rider as well as the deceased had fallen down because of which the deceased had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same on 26.9.2006 during treatment. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,03,500/­ with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The Tribunal has specifically come to the conclusion that the insurance policy is a package policy and being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

C/FA/91/2012 JUDGMENT

3. Heard Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant. Though served, no one appears for the respondents.

4. Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that as it was a packaged policy, the risk of pillion rider is not covered and the appellant - insurance Company is not liable as the pillion rider was only a third party. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended that as the insurance Company is not liable at all, the impugned judgment and award is erroneous and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. Shah, however, candidly submitted that the issue involved in this appeal and the grounds raised are considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. V. Balakrishnan & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 473, wherein it is held that if the policy is comprehensive/package policy, liability would be fastened on the insurer.

6. No other or further submissions, grounds and/or contentions are made by the learned advocate for the appellant.

7. In view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balakrishnan

C/FA/91/2012 JUDGMENT

(supra), the grounds raised in this appeal deserve to be negatived. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan (supra), the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to send back the original record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(R.M.CHHAYA, J) MRP