Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Rajesh Iron And Steel Ship ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5714 Guj

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/FA/2382/1993                               JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

                                                                                    undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2382 of 1993


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

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

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
                                Versus
           RAJESH IRON AND STEEL SHIP BREAKERS & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR PC MASTER(446) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
MR KETAN A DAVE(255) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                              Date : 07/08/2023

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal is directed against the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claims

Petition No. 280 of 1987 by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar on 17.6.1993, the

appellant - Insurance Company has preferred the present

appeal.

2. The broad facts of the case are that a vehicular

accident took place on 13.9.1984 on the road leading from

Alang to Bhavnagar and the vehicle involved was a Matador

bearing No.GUQ 9201 owned by Rajesh Iron and Metal Ship

Breakers - respondent No.1 and insured with the Oriental

Insurance Company Limited. It is the case of the appellant

that several persons were travelling in the said Matador and

in the accident, three persons died and one suffered

injuries. The deceased were one Dipakbhai Rajaram,

partner of Rajesh Iron and Metal Ship Breakers, his

accountant Dushyantkumar Bhatukbhai Trivedi and

Savjibhai also an employee of the said firm and the injured

was one Mahmadbhai Mavjibhai Khoja.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

3. The claim petitions were filed by the heirs of the

deceased and the injured. It may be noted that Motor

Accident Claim Petition Nos.318 and 321 of 1984 were filed

in the year 1984 whereas Motor Accident Claim Petition

Nos. 102 and 280 of 1987 were also filed through the same

advocate only in the year 1987 and there was delay of 3

years and 3 months in filing Motor Accident Claim Petition

No.280/1987 which came to be condoned.

4. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(Main), Bhavnagar vide the impugned judgment and award

dated 17.6.1993 partly allowed the claim petition preferred

by the claimants and being aggrieved by the same, the

appellant - insurance company has approached this Court

by way of filing the present appeal.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati for the

appellant - insurance company has drawn the attention of

this Court to the fact that immediately after the accident, on

the same day FIR in respect of the accident was filed by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

Mahmadbhai Mavjibhai and a panchnama was also drawn

on the same day. Mr.Nanavati submitted that if the

reference is made to the description of the accident stated in

Motor Accident Claim Petitions No.318 and 321 of 1984, it

has been specifically stated that Dipakbhai Rajaram was

driving the accident and it was he who caused the accident

and this was the specific case of the claimants and the

learned Tribunal without any amendment to the pleadings

has stated in the issues "driver of the vehicle" which in the

facts of the case can only be Dipakbhai. Mr.Nanavati has

further submitted that reference may also be made to the

FIR filed in this case which is relied on by all the parties

concerned and the panchnama drawn on the same day,

corroborates this fact in as much as it was the case in the

FIR that Dipakbhai was driving the vehicle which dashed

with a tree resulting in heavy damage to the vehicle on the

drivers side and in this accident Mahmadbhai who was

sitting on the cleaner's side i.e. left side was thrown out and

suffered injuries. Mr.Nanavati has further submitted that it

has also come in the evidence that Dipakbhai suffered

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

injuries on the stomach and two other persons sitting at the

back also suffered injuries and died. In support of his

submissions, Mr.Nanavati has placed reliance on the

following decisions :

(1) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Premlata Shukla &

Others reported in 2007(7) SCALE 725

(2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Jaysukhlal

Maganlal Doshi & Others, reported in 2013(3) GLR

5.1 While making the submissions, Mr.Nanavati also

placed reliance on Exh-67 - Claim Form filed by Rajesh Iron

& Metal Ship Breakers - owner of the vehicle in which

Dipakbhai was a partner, dated 9.10.1984 and the reasons

assigned by the learned Tribunal to discard this positive

evidence is unjustified and perverse. Mr.Nanavati has also

drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph 3 of the

impugned judgment that while describing the brief facts of

the case, the learned Tribunal itself has stated that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

vehicle was being driven by Dipakkumar Rajaram

Makwana.

5.2 Mr.Nanavati has further submitted that possibly

realizing that the facts stated in Motor Accident Claim

Petition Nos.318 and 321 of 1984 that the claimants of the

Motor Accident Claim Petitions No.102 and 280 of 1987 i.e.

more than 3 years after the accident put up the case as an

after thought that it was Mahmadbhai who was driving the

vehicle. The learned Tribunal did not give any cogent and

convincing reasoning for not relying on the FIR, panchnama

and the facts stated by the claimants in the year 1984 itself

and what made it to accept the averments as to who was

driving the vehicle stated in the Motor Accident Claim

Petition No.280 of 1987 which was filed more than 3 years

after the accident and thus, it is abundantly clear that it

was Dipakbhai who was driving the vehicle and it was his

negligence which caused the accident. Mr.Nanavati has

further submitted that the panchnama of the vehicle

involved in the accident shows beyond doubt that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

damage to the vehicle on the right hand side body of the

vehicle was substantial and the steering was bent which

would show that the person who was driving the vehicle

would die on account of the impact which caused damage

on the right side of vehicle and obviously it was Dipakbhai

who died and not Mahmadbhai who was sitting on the left

hand side of the vehicle in question. The reasoning adopted

by the learned Tribunal to say the least is perverse and the

perversity in the findings can be seen from the following

observations in the judgment in paragraph 28 of the

impugned judgment:

".... There are deaths of three persons and the

claimants thereof have no personal knowledge as

to who was driving the vehicle. Amrabhai Exh. 52

does not give clear evidence. At one breathe he

says that Dipakbhai and he were sitting in the

rear seat and in the cross examination, after the

warning and note in the evidence about

incongruous reply he has stated that Dipakbhai

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

and driver were sitting in the front seat. He does

not know that Dipakbhai had injury on stomach"

Mr.Nanavati, therefore, submitted that despite the above

clear and unambiguous observations, the same learned

Tribunal took a summersault and believed the evidence of

such a witness -Amarabhai to conclude that Mahmadbhai

was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and

admittedly, there were other persons in the vehicle and the

claimants did not examine any other witnesses to prove

their case.

5.3 Mr.Nanavati has further submitted that the

learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that as Dipakbhai was

driving the vehicle himself and he was a partner of the

insured firm and therefore, he himself as an owner of the

insured vehicle, cannot claim compensation against himself

in respect of the damage suffered on account of the rash

and negligent driving by himself. Mr.Nanavati has further

submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

in law, a partnership firm is not a legal entity but only a

compendious name to describe all the partners. Therefore,

Dipakbhai who was a partner of the insured firm cannot

claim compensation against himself. In the circumstances,

the insurance company cannot be called upon to pay

compensation to the heirs of deceased Dipakbhai. In

support of his above submissions, Mr.Nanavati has placed

reliance on the following decisions:

(1) Narchinva V. Kamat and another etc., v. Alfredo

AndonioDoe Martins and others, reported in AIR 1985

SC 1281.

(2) Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and anr.,

reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553.

(3) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Juma Saha & Ors.,

reported in 2007(1) Supreme 609.

(4) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Rajni Devi and ors.,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

reported in (2008) SCC 736.

(5) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sadanand Mukhi &

ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417.

5.4 Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions,

Mr.Nanavati has further submitted that the learned

Tribunal failed to appreciate that even if Mohmadbhai was

driving the vehicle, he was driving the vehicle for and on

behalf of the owner viz., the insured firm which included

Dipakbhai as partner and that Mohmadbhai was an agent

acting for and on behalf of the insured firm and therefore,

no claim of compensation can be made either against

Mohmadbhai who is the professional driver or against the

insured firm because no person can make claim against

himself or his duly authorised agent for the alleged wrong

done by his authorised agent viz. rash and negligent driving

in the instant case.

5.5 Mr.Nanavati has further submitted that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident is of

the year 1984 and in case of liability of the insurer for each

of the passengers in the vehicle was limited either to the

payment of Rs.20,000/- per passenger as per the terms of

the policy and or in respect of an employee it was limited

only to the amount which was due and payable under the

provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. Mr.Nanavati

has further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not

take into consideration the fact that by the death of

Dipakbhai there was no loss of income so far as the

claimants were concerned in as much as the evidence

shows that on the death of Dipakbhai, his wife was taken as

partner of the firm and was given 15 percent share in the

profit, whereas the deceased Dipakbhai was getting profit to

the extent of 20% and it was also not the case of the

claimants that on the death of Dipakbhai, the firm was

either closed down or suffered adversely and it can at the

best be said that the claimants may be said to have lost

supervision charges on the death of Dipakbhai.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

5.6 Mr.Nanavati has further submitted that the

learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the case is of

the year 1984 and the exemption limit of Income Tax at the

relevant time was Rs.25,000/- and the income of the

deceased taken as Rs.5,000/- i.e. Rs.60,000/- was liable to

substantial deduction of Income Tax and it is well settled

legal position as laid down by the Honourable Apex Court

that while considering the income for computing the

compensation, income tax and other taxes payable should

be deducted.

5.7 Mr.Nanavati has drawn the attention of this

Court that this Court had admitted the appeals and while

admitting the appeals, investment orders were made and

subsequently vide order dated 20.4.1995, this Court was

pleased to permit the legal heirs of Dipakbhai - claimants in

Motor Accident Claim Petition No.280/87 and respondents

in this appeal to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- out of the total

amount deposited by the appellant. Thereafter, the original

claimants filed Civil Application No.7410 of 2003 with a

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

prayer to permit them to withdraw 50% interest accrued on

the investment of Rs.3,50,000/- made in the names of

respondents No.2 and 3 for the purpose of their marriage

and this Court vide order dated 16.10.2003 allowed

withdrawal of the entire interest accrued on the deposits

made in the names of the three claimants which was about

to Rs.29,00,000/- and on the very next day of the order, the

original claimants withdrew the aforesaid amount from the

investment made by the learned Tribunal. Against the said

order, the appellant Insurance Company filed SLP before the

Honourable Apex Court but by the time the matter came up

for hearing as the claimants had already withdrawn the

amounts, the SLP appears to have become infructuous and

thus the original claimants who are the legal heirs of

Dipakbhai have already got a whopping sum of Rs.

30,00,000/- and odd in their case.

5.8 Mr.Nanavati has further submitted that the

accident was a serious one in which three persons died and

naturally the Police must have investigated the case and if,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

in fact, Mohmadbhai was driving, he would have been

prosecuted by the Police and nothing of that sort has

happened in this case which would prove that it was not

Mohmadbhai, but Dipakbhai who was driving the vehicle at

the time of the accident. Mr.Nanavati, therefore, prays that

the appeal be allowed and appropriate orders for refund be

passed.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Hiren

Modi appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 has

strenuously opposed the present appeal. Mr.Modi has

submitted that as far as the first submission of the

insurance company that the deceased was driving the

vehicle and therefore, he cannot make claim against the

insurance company for his own negligence is concerned, in

the claim petition, there is a specific pleading in paragraph

10 that the opponent no.2- Mohammad Mavjibhai Khoja

was driving the Matador. Mr.Modi has drawn the attention

of this Court towards the paragraph 18 of the impugned

judgment and contended that there was a specific issue

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

framed by the learned Tribunal that whether the deceased

Dipakbhai himself was driving the vehicle and because of

his negligence the incident occurred ? and after considering

in depth the evidences, the learned Tribunal answered that

the Matador was being driven by the driver Mohammad

Mavjibhai Khoja. Mr.Modi has further submitted that if the

evidence of Hemaben widow of Dipakbhai examined at

Exhibit- 49 is seen, she has categorically said that

Mohammadbhai was the paid driver of the firm and he was

driving the said Matador on the day of accident and the said

version is supported by another eyewitness at Exhibit - 52

Amarabhai Rambhai wherein it is stated that the deceased

Dipakbhai was on the rear seat and sat with him. This

witness is an independent witness and is not the beneficiary

of the claim amount. Mr.Modi has further submitted that

the insurance company has relied upon the FIR lodged by

Mohamadbhai and also oral evidence of Mohamadbhai

which was recorded in his claim petition in support of his

claim petition wherein he said that at the time of accident

he was not driving the Matador but the deceased was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

driving the Matador. This statement is not required to be

believed for the reason that Mohamadbhai himself was

beneficiary of the claim amount because he has also filed

the claim petition and his claim is partly allowed to the tune

of Rs. 50,000/- and insurance company has filed the appeal

but said appeal has been disposed of without entering the

into merits. In such circumstances, the evidence of the

Mohammadbhai is not trustworthy as he has made such

statement to get the benefit out of it. Mr.Modi has further

submitted that another evidence of Bhartiben Manharbhai

at Exhibit- 34 suggests that the deceased Dipakbhai was

driving the Matador but she is not eye witness and

therefore, her evidence will not be helpful to the insurance

company.

6.1 In support of his submissions, Mr.Modi has

heavily placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs.

Chamundeshwari and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held in paragraph 8 that "if any evidence before

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first

information report, the evidence which is recorded before

the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of

the first information report.". Mr.Modi, therefore, submits

that in the present case also, there is one independent

eyewitness at Exhibit - 52 Amrabhai Rambhai who has

stated that the driver Mohamadbhai was driving the

Matador whereas the FIR lodged by Mohamadbhal and also

evidence of the Mohamadbhai clearly states that the

deceased Dipakbhai was driving the Matador and therefore,

reliability of an independent witness is to be considered

instead of beneficiary witness that is Mohamadbhai.

6.3 Mr.Modi has further submitted that even if for the

sake argument it is believed that the deceased was not

driving the Matador, he was occupant in that case also, the

insurance company cannot be exonerated from paying the

compensation because the deceased himself was not the

owner of the vehicle and the Matador was registered in the

name of M/s. Rajesh Iron and Metal Works and the said

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

firm is a partnership firm and the deceased was a partner in

the firm. Mr.Modi has drawn the attention of this Court that

the Matador was in the name of M/s Rajesh Iron and Metal

and not in the name of the deceased and the Oriental

Insurance Company has also issued the policy in the name

of M/s Rajesh Iron and Metal and therefore, from the RC

Book and Insurance Policy, the name mentioned is of M/s

Rajesh Iron and Metal not of the deceased Dipakbhai.

Mr.Modi has further submitted that as per the Section 2(30)

of Motor Vehicles Act the owner means a person in whose

name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such

person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in

relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-

purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an

agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the

vehicle under that agreement and hence, as per his

submission, the owner means a person in whose name a

motor vehicle stands registered and in the present case, the

vehicle in question is not registered in the name of the

deceased.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

6.4 Mr.Modi has further submitted that the

submission made on behalf of the insurance company that

since the deceased being a partner can be said to be the

owner of the vehicle and the firm is the partnership firm is

contrary to the provisions of Section 2(30) of the Act as well

as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Balakrishnan and

another, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731. Relying upon the

said decision, Mr.Modi has submitted that the deceased

cannot be said to be owner of the vehicle in question.

6.5 Mr.Modi has further submitted that as per the

settled law, even if the owner is travelling in his vehicle,

then also, the insurance company is liable to pay the

compensation and therefore, Mr.Modi, urges that the appeal

filed by the insurance company deserves to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati for

the appellant - insurance company and the learned

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 -

original claimants. This Court has also perused the

materials made available to this Court.

8. It can be seen that the main contention of the

appellant - insurance company before the Tribunal as well

as before this Court is that the appellant - insurance

company is not liable in any manner for payment of

compensation as claimed by the claimants as the

panchnama drawn on the same day as well as the FIR

corroborates the fact that Dipakbhai was driving the vehicle

which dashed with a tree resulting in heavy damage to the

vehicle on the drivers side and in this accident Mahmadbhai

who was sitting on the cleaner's side i.e. left side was

thrown out and suffered injuries. Indisputably, the Matador

bearing registration No.GUQ 9201 which had been insured

with the appellant - insurance company has met with an

accident on 13.9.1984. It is also not in dispute that the said

vehicle was owned by Rajesh Iron and Metal Ship Breakers

- respondent No.1 herein.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

9. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the

appellant - insurance company appeared and filed the

written statement by contending that at the relevant time,

Dipakkumar was driving the vehicle in question.

Indisputably, Dipakkumar was the partner of the

respondent No.1 firm which is the owner of the vehicle. The

learned Tribunal arrived at a finding that the driver of the

offending vehicle is one Mahmadbhai and not Dipakkumar.

It is the specific contention of the appellant - insurance

company that the deceased himself was driving the said

Matador on the date of the accident and the said Matador

dashed with the tree and therefore, when the deceased

himself was negligent for the accident, the legal heirs of the

deceased are not entitled for the claim against the appellant

insurance company.

10. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the

provisions of Section 147 of the Act which reads as under.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

"147 Requirements of policies and limits of liability. --

(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which--

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)--

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:

Provided that a policy shall not be required--

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee--

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or

(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or

(ii) to cover any contractual liability.

Explanation. --For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.

(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:--

(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred;

(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand:

Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.

(3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

(4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.

Therefore, the intention of the legislature for enactment of

the aforesaid provisions is to fix the liability of the

concerned party in case of death or bodily injury to any

person in the event of unfortunate vehicular accident. It is

also equally true that the provisions of the Act provides for

two types of insurance - one statutory in nature and the

other contractual in nature.

11. Now, the question arises for consideration of this

Court is whether the appellant - insurance company is

liable to pay the amount of compensation in relation to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

accident that has occurred by use of the vehicle which was

being driven by the deceased Dipakkumar. The liability of

the appellant - insurance company is to the extent of

indemnification of the insured. Therefore, on plain reading

of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, it clearly

transpires that the appellant - insurance company cannot

be held liable to indemnify the owner, the firm, the insured

in respect of the death of Dipakkumar who according to the

FIR lodged by Mahamadbhai was the driver of the offending

vehicle. Even, the learned Tribunal has recorded the clear

and unambiguous finding in Motor Accident Claim Petition

Nos.318 and 321 of 1984 that deceased Dipakbhai was

driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.GUQ

9201. Despite the panchnama of the place of accident as

well as the FIR in connection with the said vehicular

accident are on record, the learned Tribunal took a

summersault and believed the evidence of witness -

Amrabhai to conclude that Mahmadbhai was driving the

vehicle at the time of accident and this finding is an

erroneous finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal. It is an

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

admitted position on record that there were other persons in

the said vehicle involved in the accident and the claimants

did not examine any other witness to prove their case. It is

also an admitted fact that Dipakbhai was the partner of the

insured firm and was driving the offending vehicle at the

time of accident and therefore, his legal heirs cannot claim

compensation against the deceased himself and in this view

of the matter, the appellant insurance company cannot be

called upon to pay the compensation to the heirs and legal

representatives of deceased Dipakbhai.

12. Therefore, considering the provisions of the Act as

referred above as well as the law settled by the Honourable

Apex Court in various judgments and having regard to the

evidence on record, the contention raised by the appellant

insurance company deserves acceptance and therefore, no

liability should be imposed on them.

13. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same

is allowed to the extent indicated below.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

14. Mr.Nanavati has invited the attention of this

Court that while admitting the appeal, investment orders

were made and subsequently vide order dated 20.4.1995,

this Court was pleased to permit the legal heirs of

Dipakbhai - claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition

No.280/87 and respondents in this appeal to withdraw

Rs.1,00,000/- out of the total amount deposited by the

appellant. Thereafter, the original claimants filed Civil

Application No.7410 of 2003 with a prayer to permit them to

withdraw 50% interest accrued on the investment of

Rs.3,50,000/- made in the names of respondents No.2 and

3 for the purpose of their marriage and this Court vide order

dated 16.10.2003 allowed the entire interest accrued on the

deposits made in the names of the three claimants to be

withdrawn which was about to Rs.29,00,000/- and on the

very next day of the order, the original claimants withdrew

the aforesaid amount from the investment made by the

learned Tribunal and thus the original claimants who are

the legal heirs of Dipakbhai have already got a whopping

sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and odd in their favour.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2382/1993 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2023

undefined

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the amount

deposited by the appellant - insurance company pursuant

to the impugned order is ordered to be refunded to the

appellant - insurance company by way of NEFT/RTGS after

due verification. It is clarified that the amount of

compensation or the interest accrued thereon which is

ordered to be withdrawn by the claimants shall not be

recovered, but the amount of compensation which is lying in

the FDR in the concerned bank is ordered to be refunded to

the appellant - insurance company.

R & P be sent back forthwith.

(S. V. PINTO,J) H.M. PATHAN