[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Girishbhai Maganbhai Patel on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4330/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4330 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4330 of 2025
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
GIRISHBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Insurance Company has preferred this First Appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging
the judgment and award dated 18.07.2025 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Lunawada in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 99 of 2021.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.2018, the
claimant and Vinodkumar Kalidas Patel were travelling from
Vakhatpur to Thanasavali on Motorcycle No. GJ-35-C-6134,
driven by the claimant. He was driving carefully on the correct
(left) side of the road. At around 20:15 hours, the claimant
halted the motorcycle at the roadside to attend to nature's call.
At that moment, opponent No.1, driving Motorcycle No. GJ-35-
D-9336 in a rash and negligent manner, at excessive speed and
from the wrong direction, collided with the claimant's
motorcycle. Due to the impact, both the claimant and the pillion
rider were thrown off the vehicle, resulting in serious injuries to
the claimant, including fractures. The incident was registered at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4330/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
Kothamba Police Station vide I-C.R. No. 38/18 against opponent
No.1. The claimant thereafter filed the present claim petition
seeking compensation.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has challenged the
impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground that the
Tribunal failed to consider that the driver of the offending vehicle
did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of
the accident. It is submitted that instead of exonerating the
insurance company, the Tribunal erroneously fastened liability
upon it. The licence produced at Exhibit 42 pertains to the
claimant himself, whereas opponent Nos.1 and 2 have neither
produced any driving licence nor filed any supporting affidavit.
Despite this, the Tribunal treated the licence at Exhibit 42 as if it
belonged to the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is
contended that the insurance company ought to have been
exonerated from liability.
5. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and
examined the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has
duly appreciated the evidence and rightly passed the impugned
award. The appeal has been filed only on the limited ground
seeking exoneration of the insurance company on the premise
that opponent No.1 did not possess a valid licence. However, no
such specific defence has been raised in the written statement.
Even assuming such a defence was taken, no evidence has been
adduced to prove the same. The claimant is a third party and is
not concerned with any breach of policy conditions between the
insurer and the insured. The Tribunal has clearly recorded that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4330/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
the driving licence produced at Exhibit 42 establishes that
opponent No.1 was holding a valid and effective licence at the
time of the accident. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the
insurer has failed to prove its defence and that the insurance
policy was in force on the date of the accident, thereby making
the insurer liable to indemnify the owner and driver of the
offending vehicle.
6. In view of the above, and in the absence of any material to
the contrary, the Tribunal has committed no error in saddling
the liability upon the Insurance Company and defence raised by
the insurer must be proved by cogent and reliable evidence, and
mere pleadings cannot be treated as proof. No case is therefore
made out for admission of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal
stands dismissed at the admission stage. Pending Civil
Applications, if any, stand disposed of as having become
infructuous. No order as to costs.
7. Record and Proceedings and amount, if any lying before
this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith along w3585ith accrued interest, if any. The entire
awarded amount be disbursed and released in favour of the
claimants after due verification by transferring the said amount
to the account of the claimants either by RTGS or NEFT mode.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
