[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Miraben Varghabhai (Varghabhai) Ven on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1047 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
MIRABEN VARGHABHAI (VARGHABHAI) VEN & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAULIN G PANDYA(3999) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter
be referred to as "the Act") challenging the judgment and award
dated 17.12.2021, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Palanpur District - Banaskantha (hereinafter
referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.05 of 2019.
2) Heard Mr. R. P. Raval for the appellant. Perused the original record
and proceedings.
3) It is the case of the original claimants - respondent nos.1 to 5
herein, that on 11.07.2018, deceased Varghabhai (Varghabhai)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
Shankarbhai Ven (who shall hereinafter be referred to as
"deceased") was going to Varahi to Radhanpur on Activa bearing
Reg. No.GJ-01-PQ-4314 as pillion rider, at that time, suddenly a car
bearing Reg. No.RJ-14-CA-1802, driven rashly and negligently by
its driver and dashed with the Activa from back side. As a result of
which the deceased sustained severe fatal injuries which resulted
into his death. Therefore, the original claimants have filed MAC
Petition seeking compensation. After appreciating the evidence
produced on record the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly
allowed the claim petition.
4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has not considered the fact that the driver Rajeshkumar -
respondent no.6 herein was not having effective driving license on
the date of the accident and his driving license is valid only for
driving "invalid carriage" vehicle and he was driving a normal
vehicle. The word "invalid carriage" as per Section 2 (18) of the MV
Act is specially designed and constructed vehicle. Hence, there is
breach of policy proved on record and the learned Tribunal has
committed error in fastening liability of the Insurance Company and
the Insurance Company is required to be exonerated in light of
Section 5 of the Act. The learned Tribunal has awarded excessive
compensation and hence requested to allow the present appeal.
5) Having heard the learned Advocate and going through the record it
appears that the negligence and quantum are not in dispute only
liability is disputed on the ground that on the date of accident
though the driver of offending vehicle was having Invalid Carriage
License he was driving normal vehicle. So far liability part is
concerned in the said accident car and activa both are involved and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1047/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
opponent no.1 is registered owner of the car and appellant is the
insurer of the car involved in the accident. The car policy was in
force at the time of the accident which is not disputed. The
documents of ownership of car and activa are on record and the
same are also not disputed. The defence qua driver was not holding
proper license is concerned, if we peruse the judgment it appears
that the opponent no.2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed
written statement at Exhibit 42, and denied the involvement of the
vehicle and on the date of accident the driver of car was not
holding effective license except these defence no any evidence was
led to prove the said fact. Mere pleading is not sufficient to prove
the said fact and even the Insurance Company has not examined
the driver of the car nor he stepped in the witness box and in
absence of any material or proof or fundamental breach of the
policy the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated and in
absence of any evidence the learned Tribunal has not committed
any error to saddle liability of the Insurance Company. Therefore,
merely taking defence is not enough to prove the said fact and the
Insurance Company has to examine any independent witness form
the Regional Transport Office or driver of the vehicle to prove the
defence. As the claimants are third party they have nothing to do
with invalid license. Hence, the learned Advocate for the appellant
failed to point out any error committed by the learned Tribunal.
6) In view of above no interference is required as the learned Tribunal
has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment
and award. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
