Gujarat High Court
Iffco-Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd vs Durgavaatiben Ramakanth Chaturvedi on 1 August, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2762/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2762 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
IFFCO-TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
Versus
DURGAVAATIBEN RAMAKANTH CHATURVEDI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUNAL R SAKSENA(5915) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 01/08/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance
Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2762/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.751 of 2006, by which, the Tribunal has
partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.2,99,000/-
with 7.5% p.a. interest to be paid to claimant/s, by holding
opponents liable, jointly and severally.
2. The facts of the present appeal are as under :
2.1 The claimant/s filed the claim petition stating that
the claimant and his son were going in a rickshaw
no.GJ.1AV.8424 from Vastral to Rakhiyal and at that time,
at about 8.30 hours the rickshaw stopped on the ringroad on
the corner with stop signal on and at that time, the loading
rickshaw no.GJ.1U.651 came with his rickshaw in rash and
negligent manner and dashed the front side of the rickshaw
with the rickshaw in which the claimant was sitting due to
which the claimant suffered injuries. Therefore, the claim
petition was filed for compensation.
2.2 The notices were served to the opponents. Opponents
No.1 & 3 have not filed their rely. The opponent nos.2 and
4-insurance companies filed the written statements. The
issues were framed by the Tribunal. Oral as well as
documentary evidence were led before the Tribunal. After
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2762/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
hearing the submissions made by the rival parties, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition(s) and awarded
compensation as noted above.
2.3 Hence, the insurance company-original opponent no.2 has
filed the present appeal before this Court.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance
Company has mainly submitted that the learned Tribunal has
gravely erred in holding the opponent nos.1 and 2-driver and
insurance company of the loading rickshaw solely negligent
for the accident. He submitted that in fact, the driver of the
said vehicle was not holding a valid licence to driver a
transport vehicle and the driver only held a licence to driver
a non-transport vehicle. He submitted that in view of this,
the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation as there is breach of terms of the policy
committed by the driver of the said vehicle. He, therefore,
prays to allow this appeal.
4. Per Contra, learned advocate for respondent no.4-
insurance company of the rickshaw in which the claimant
was travelling has submitted that the rickshaw insured with
the said insurance company was standing on the side of the
road with stop signal on and the loading rickshaw dashed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2762/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
with it from behind. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has
rightly held the said vehicle negligent solely for the accident
and also considering the documentary and oral evidence led
before it, the FIR, panchanama etc., has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and award, which is not required to be
interfered with in this appeal. He, therefore, submitted to
dismiss this appeal.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
respective parties. I have perused the record and proceedings.
I have gone through the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal. I have also considered the pleadings
of the parties before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has
discussed in paragraph 14 with regard to the issue of licence
with the driver of the loading rickshaw and observed that
the licence is produced at Exh.37 and the RTO certificate
with regard to that licence is produced at Exh.48, from which
it is seen that it is for driving auto rickshaw and MCEX-50-
CC-WIGR which shows that the driver had the licence of
driving a auto rickshaw and at the time of the accident, the
driver was driving a loading rickshaw. The learned Tribunal
was right in observing that the mechanism of auto rickshaw
and loading rickshaw is same, however, their usage is
different and therefore, it cannot be said that the driver was
not holding a valid licence to drive a loading rickshaw. I do
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2762/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2024
undefined
not find any point in interfering with the said finding of the
learned Tribunal considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2016)4
SCC 298, which holds the field.
5.1 No other grounds are argued by the learned
advocate for the appellant in this appeal. The appeal
therefore deserves to be dismissed.
6. In view of above, the following order is passed.
6.1 The present appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
6.2 The amount lying with the Tribunal and/or in the FDR,
pursuant to the order of this Court if any, shall be disbursed
to the claimant, along with accrued interest thereon if any,
by account payee cheque, after proper verification and after
following due procedure, within a period of six weeks from
today.
6.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
