Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (Hub) vs Heirs Of Deceased Sanjaybhai ... on 27 January, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 975 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
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 ?
=======================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD (HUB)
Versus
HEIRS OF DECEASED SANJAYBHAI RANCHHODBHAI @ KALUBHAI
DABHI & 2 other(s)
=======================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
(MR SURESHM SHAH)(805) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR SAMEE URAIZEE WITH VISHAL MEHTA WITH MR MEHUL S
SHAH(772) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Page 1 of 7
Downloaded on : Mon Jan 31 20:26:22 IST 2022
C/FA/975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
Date : 27/01/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot passed in Motor Accident Claims
Petition No. 288 of 2008, by which, the learned Tribunal has held
and directed the appellant - original opponent no.2 - Insurance
Company to pay the compensation to the original claimant, the
original opponent no. 2 - insurer has preferred present First
Appeal.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 13.01.2008, the
deceased Sanjaybhai Ranchhodbhai @ Kalubhai Dabhi was going
by travelling in Tractor bearing registration No.GJ-13-B-2331 and
Trolley bearing registration no.GJ-3-X-7765 as labourer and the
driver of the Tractor was driving the same in rash and negligent
manner with excessive speed and by flouting the traffic rules, on
account of which the deceased having thrown away from the
Trolley and the wheel of the Tractor ran over the head of the
deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained serious
injury and succumbed to the injury. Hence, the legal heir of the
deceased has filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming
C/FA/975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
compensation of Rs.6,73,000/-.
2.1 After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence
led by the parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim
petition by awarding Rs.2,06,100/- as compensation in favour of
the original claimant.
3. Short question arise in the present appeal is that whether
the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation or not.
4. The original opponent has relied upon the following
documentary evidence.
Sr.No. Particulars Exhibit
/ Marks
3 Inquest panchnama wherein the deceased Sanjaybhai's 31
age is mentioned ot be 28 years
4 Report sent by the police with dead body of the deceased 32
for postmortem wherein the deceased's age is mentioned
to be 28 years
5 Receipt for handing over dead body of the deceased 33
7 Certificate issued by R.T.O. Rajkot in respect of ownership 35
of the vehicle No.GJ-3-X-7765
8 Postmortem report wherein the deceased's age is 36
mentioned to be 28 years
9 Charge-sheet filed against Sukhlal Hiralal Patariya for the 37
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of I.P.C.
and under Sections 184 and 177 of the M.V. Act
10 R.C. Book of vehicle No.GJ-13-B-2331 which goes to show 42
that opponent No.1 was the registered owner of the said
C/FA/975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
vehicle since 09-04-2001
11 Police statement of Batuklal Maganlal 22/3
12 Letter written by P.S.I. Kotda Sangani Police Station to 22/3
A.S.I., Shaper Veraval Police Station
13 Janva Jog Entry No.10/2008 dated 13-01-2008 of Kotda 22/5
Sangani Police Station
14 Letter written by Civil Hospital Police Chowki, Rajkot to 22/6
P.S.I., Kotda Sangani Police Station
15 Letter written by Police Head constable of civil Hospital 22/7
Police Chowki, Rajkot to Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,
Rajkot
16 Police Station of the applicant - Baluben W/o. 22/12
Ranchhodbhai Popat
17 Police Statement of Sukhlal Hiralal 22/13
18. Police State of the opponent No.1 - Bharat Valjibhai 22/14
5. Heard Mr.Rituraj Meena, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant - Insurance Company, Mr.Samee Uraizee, learned
counsel appearing with Mr.Vishal Mehta, learned counsel with
Mr.Mehul Shah, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 and
Mr.Hemal Shah, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.
6. Mr.Meena, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -
Insurance Company has submitted that though the deceased
was labourer, but he was sitting on mudguard and, therefore, it
is clear breach of the conditions of the policy and, therefore, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. In
fact, he has submitted that while considering the multiplier, the
Tribunal has committed an error by considering the age of the
C/FA/975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
mother instead of deceased. He has submitted that since the
original claimant has not filed any cross appeal / objection and,
therefore, the question would not arise to determine the income.
7. Per contra, Mr.Uraizee, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.1 and Mr.Hemal Shah, learned counsel appearing
for respondent no.2 have supported the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal. They have submitted that the
Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the
impugned judgment and award and, therefore, no interference is
called for. They have submitted that the appeal being meritless,
deserves to be dismissed.
8. No other or further submissions, grounds or contentions
have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
9. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, perused
the record and proceedings and also perused policy at Exhibit
38 of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor and more particularly
discussion made by the Tribunal in para-19 of the impugned
judgment and award, it appears that the Tribunal has rightly
C/FA/975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
considered the submissions made on behalf of the claimant and
has not considered the contentions and averments made on
behalf of the Insurance Company. It also appears that the
Insurance Company has recovered the additional premium
towards the liability of the labourer and, therefore, the Tribunal
has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award.
Considering the fact that merely the deceased was travelling in
the Tractor, the Insurance Company cannot resign from its
liability and, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is not
required to be interfered with. Considering the decisions of the
Apex Court in the case of Shivraj Vs. Rajendra and another,
(2018) 10 SCC 432, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Dalsing Suppral Damor and others, 2013 Law Suit
(Gujarat) 1092 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Brij Mohan, (2007) 7 SCC 56 and considering admitted
fact that the deceased of was sitting as a labourer in the Tractor
with the goods, it appears that the Insurance Company has
rightly fastened the liability and, therefore, the appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Record and proceedings be
C/FA/975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022
sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
