[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Iffco Tokio Gen Ins Co Ltd vs Balaben Wd/O Dolabhai Nayaka on 5 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3859/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3859 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
IFFCO TOKIO GEN INS CO LTD
Versus
BALABEN WD/O DOLABHAI NAYAKA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GAJENDRA P BAGHEL(2968) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 05/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned
judgment and award dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1565 of 2006, whereby the
learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,99,500/- as a
compensation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3859/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal is that
on 19.04.2006, the deceased Dolabhai was travelling in a tractor
bearing registration No.GJ-17-D-4184 with trailer No.GJ-17-X-
9379 and going from Aniyad to Nada. When the tractor was
passing near Village- Gugadiya, at about 1:00 pm, the opponent
No.1/respondent No.7- herein came in rash and negligent
manner by driving and resultantly the said tractor and trailer
turned turtle. As a result of the said accident, the deceased
Dolabhai sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he was
admitted in Civil Hospital, Godhra. During the treatment, he
succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of the original
claimants before the learned Tribunal that at the time of
accident the deceased was aged about 33 years and he was hale
and hearty and he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month
by doing the agricultural labour work. It is also the case of the
original claimants that the deceased was left behind all six
family members as a dependent.
3. The claim petition was instituted under Section 163-A of
the M. V. Act. In order to prove their claim, the
claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 6- herein led the following oral as
well as documentary evidence before the learned Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3859/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
Sr Particulars Exhibit
No.
1. Affidavit in examination-in-chief of 20
claimant
3. Copy of panchnama of place of 14
accident
5. Copy of Insurance Policy of tractor 16
and trailer
4. The appellant herein had not led any evidence before the
learned Tribunal.
5. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,99,500/- as a compensation
along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the appellant- Insurance Company
challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of
liability to satisfy the award.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3859/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
7. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
8. Ms. Kirti S. Pathak, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellant- Insurance Company, vehemently submitted
that at the time of accident, the deceased was travelling in
tractor bearing registration No.GJ-17-D-4184 with trailer No.GJ-
17-X-9379. She further submitted that the tractor is only for
agricultural work and not for travelling, therefore, there is a
fundamental breach of the policy of the Insurance Company and
Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award. She
further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error
in directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award.
9. On the other hand, learned advocate, appearing on behalf
of the original claimants, vehemently submitted that there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the
present appeal deserves to be rejected.
10. Though the respondent No.7- driver-cum-owner was duly
served with the notice of the appeal, but he has chosen not to
appear before the Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3859/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
11. Having considered the submissions of the learned
advocates for the parties and having gone through the record, it
is to be noted that the claim petition was preferred under Section
163-A of the M. V. Act. It is not in dispute that at the time of
accident, the deceased was travelling by the tractor bearing
registration No.GJ-17-D-4184. It is also not in dispute that he
was aged about 33 years and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per
month. The learned Tribunal having considered the materials on
record and awarded a sum of Rs.4,99,500/- as a compensation
along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
12. Learned advocate for the appellant has not challenged the
quantum, however, challenged the liability of the Insurance
Company to satisfy the award. It is not in dispute that the
tractor was insured with the appellant. It is also not in dispute
that at the time of accident the deceased was travelling on a
tractor as an agricultural labour. In the case of Shivaraj Versus
Rajendra and Anr reported in 2018 (10) SCC 432 in the similar
facts and circumstances of the case Hon'ble Supreme Court has
passed the order of pay and recover. Recently the Apex Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3859/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Limited Vs Honnamam reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1027,
the Apex Court has passed the order of pay and recover in case
where the deceased was travelling in tractor/trailer.
13. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of
the case and having regard to the ratio of the aforesaid
judgments, it would be just and appropriate if the award is
modified to that extent at the first instance the Insurance
Company shall satisfy the award and thereafter it recover the
said amount from the owner/driver of the tractor i.e. respondent
No.7- herein. In view of the above discussions, the captioned
appeal stands allowed partly and accordingly, the Insurance
Company is directed to satisfy the award at the first instance
and thereafter may recover the said awarded amount along with
the interest from the owner/driver of the tractor i.e. respondent
No.7- herein.
14. The learned Tribunal shall disburse the awarded amount of
compensation to the original claimants after due verification.
15. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3859/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
of this Court, the same be transmitted to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith.
16. R & P, if any, be sent back to the concerned learned
Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
