Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Reshmabhai Kanabhai Parmar ... on 1 February, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/SCA/16649/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16649 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16650 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16651 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16652 of 2017
================================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
RESHMABHAI KANABHAI PARMAR (ADIVASI) & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HIMANSU M PADHYA(1611) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and
award dated 17.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Spl.), Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to
as "the Tribunal") in MACP Nos.149/1988, 150/1988, 151/1988
and 152/1988, the petitioner - original opponent no.3 - Insurance
Company has preferred these petitions under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Sufficient it to note that the claimants were going as
labourers in a truck bearing registration No.GRS-6475 and when
they reached near the place of occurance, the truck turned turtle
on the road and the accident took place, as a result of which, the
C/SCA/16649/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022
claimants sustained injuries.
2.1 It is also contended that the claimants settled the claim
along with the owner of the truck by filing affidavit i.e. written
compromise wherein it is specifically stated that they did not
sustain any major injuries and, therefore, they did not intent to
proceed with any litigation.
2.2 Thereafter, the claimants have filed the aforesaid claim
petitions for compensation. The Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.9,000/- each in favour of the claimants.
3. Heard Mr.Rathin Raval, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner - Insurance Company and Mr.Himanshu Padhya,
learned counsel appearing for respondents - claimants.
4. Mr.Raval, learned counsel has submitted that there is no
policy of the vehicle involved in the accident and, therefore, the
petitioner is not liable to pay any compensation. He has
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in passing
the impugned judgment and award and, therefore, the same
may be quashed and set aside. While relying upon the decision
in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs.
R. Mahendran and others, Manu/TN/3221/2016, he has
submitted that since there is no policy, the Insurance Company
could not liable to pay any amount of compensation.
5. Mr.Padhya, learned counsel has supported the impugned
judgment and award and submitted that the Tribunal has not
committed any error in awarding the compensation in favour of
the claimants. He has submitted that no interference is required
C/SCA/16649/2017 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2022
to be called for in these petitions.
6. I have perused the materials placed on record and
considered the oral judgment dated 23.03.2021 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.4936 of 2010.
Though various grounds have been raised in the memo of each
petition, the fact remains that the total amount involved in the
each petition is of Rs.9,000/- each. Considering the smallness of
amount, this Court deems it fit not to exercise jurisdiction under
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, only on the
ground of smallness of amount with a further clarification that
this may not be considered as precedent in other claim petitions
arising out of the same accident, the petitions are dismissed.
Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
