National Insurance Company vs Narharibhai Bakubhai Amin
2022 Latest Caselaw 4174 Guj

     C/FA/1208/2012                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1208 of 2012


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                       No
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                No

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                      No
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question                      No
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                         NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
                                     Versus
                      NARHARIBHAI BAKUBHAI AMIN & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PARESH M DARJI(3700) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                 Date : 18/04/2022

                                ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - insurance company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 03.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in

C/FA/1208/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2022

Motor Accident Claim Petition No.370 of 2000, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.74,000/- with 7.5% p.a. interest to the claimant, holding opponent Nos.1 to 3 liable, jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 08.01.2000, the claimant, his wife as well as his brother were going towards Ahmedabad in Maruti Car bearing registration No.GBQ-2662. At that time, opponent No.1 - Bharatbhai Manubhai Vyas came in rash and negligent manner and when they reached near Khatraj Cross Road, the tyre of Maruti Car got burst and opponent No.1 has lost his control. Therefore, they have received injuries. Due to that, the claimant has received permanent disability to some extent and also the brother of the claimant - Vikrambhai succumbed to the injuries. As per the claim petition of the claimant, the claimant was doing business at Nadiad in the name of Amit Brothers and at the time of accident, he was aged about 50 years old and was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. from business and was also earning Rs.30,000/- annually from agricultural activities. Therefore, he has filed the claim petition to get the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest.

2.3 Notices were served to the opponents. Opponent Nos.1 and 2 have not appeared before the Tribunal, Opponent No.3 - insurance company has filed its written

C/FA/1208/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2022

statement at Exh.14 by denying the averments made in the claim petition.

2.4 Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the issues for its determination at Exh.21 and on the basis of issues, the evidence is led by filing affidavit of claimant himself at Exh.25 and also produced documentary evidence; like F.I.R., Panchnama as well as insurance policy, etc.

2.5 After considering the arguments of the rival parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and directed the Opponent Nos.1 to 3 to pay Rs.74,000/- with 7.5% p.a. interest to the claimant.

2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the appellant - insurance company has submitted that the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation as the claimant was the occupant of the Maruti Car and in view of the settled position of law, the occupant of Maruti Car is not a third party within the meaning of the motor vehicle and just to cover the risk of occupant of the car, insured are required to pay additional amount. Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has

C/FA/1208/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2022

erred in considering the income of injured as Rs.4,000/- p.m. Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the law laid down in the cases of (i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 (ii) Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553 and therefore, he has prayed that this appeal may be allowed by exonerating the insurance company from its liability.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Paresh M. Darji for the respondent No.1 - claimant has submitted that from the impugned judgment, more particularly para 11, the Tribunal has specifically held that insurance company has taken premium of Rs.200/- for one lakh limit and Rs.500/- towards legal liability and therefore, extra premium is paid and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the passengers in Maruti Car also. He has also pointed out that this Court as well as other Courts have dismissed such appeals, which is filed against petty amount such as awarded in the present case of Rs.74,000/- by the Tribunal and therefore, on the ground of smallness of amount only, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Further, he has submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kiritbhai Lalchand Shah & Ors. reported in 2002 (1) GLH 115, the gratuitous passenger, who is travelling in private car, is covered by 'Act Only

C/FA/1208/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2022

Policy'. Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has otherwise also considered the amount of compensation very conservatively, therefore, no interference is required by this Court as the Tribunal has rightly awarded amount of compensation.

5. I have considered the submissions of the rival parties. I have perused the record and proceedings. It transpires that the Tribunal has rightly observed that the additional premium is rightly paid and also that aspect is rightly discussed in para 11 of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. I found that there is no perversity or irregularity committed by the Tribunal in awarding amount of Rs.74,000/- with 7.5% p.a. interest to the injured, which even otherwise very meagre, where the injury is occurred from the vehicular accident and insurance policy of the vehicle is also proved. Therefore, there is no error committed while awarding the amount of compensation by the Tribunal. More particularly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal, which is challenged in the present case is petty amount and therefore, on the ground of smallness also, this appeal deserves to be dismissed, more particularly, there is no valid and compelling reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal is required to be dismissed.

6. In view of above, the following order is passed:

C/FA/1208/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/04/2022

6.1 The present appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

6.2 The Tribunal shall disburse the amount, lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon if any, to the claimant, by following due procedure, by account payee cheque, after proper verification.

6.3 Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA