Gujarat High Court
Kamleshbhai Kunjbihari Sheth vs Narendrasinh Vrujlal Chandarana on 11 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4118/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4118 of 2009
==========================================================
KAMLESHBHAI KUNJBIHARI SHETH
Versus
NARENDRASINH VRUJLAL CHANDARANA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 11/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants - original
claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and award dated 13.2.2009 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Limdi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.694
of 2000.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of accident
i.e. 11-08-1999 when the appellant was driving the car bearing
registration No. GJ-03-K-387, owned by the opponent No. 1,
between 09:30 to 10:00 pm when the appellant reached near
Satna Hotel on the National Highway No. 8 near Chotila one
truck approached from other side with full lights. The appellant
applied break but the car gone out of the control and turn turtle
and the appellant had received serious injuries. Therefore, the
claim petition for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000-00 was filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4118/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
before the Ld. Tribunal which came to be dismissed. Hence this
appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the
insurance company has taken up the premium for the legal
liability of the paid driver. In the present case, the learned
Tribunal has believed that the road accident took lace due to
sole negligency of the Maruti car driver, but since the insurance
company has purchased the risk of the paid driver, in view of
Full Bench judgment in case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore
(Koli) Wd/o Late Laxmanbhai Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) Versus
Kandla Dock Labour Board, 2022 (1) GLR 440, the learned
Tribunal was required to pass necessary order against the owner
and insurer of the Maruti car. Upon such submission, he prays
to allow this appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Meena appearing
for the respondent - insurance company would submit that no
premium has been charged for the legal liability of the paid
driver and in view of that, the owner and the insurance company
cannot be held liable to pay compensation for self negligency of
the driver of the Maruti car and therefore, the learned Tribunal
has committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and
award. Upon such submission, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and perused the R & P.
6. In para 9 of the impugned judgment and award, the
learned Tribunal believed that the road accident took place due
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4118/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
to sole negligency of the claimant, who was driver of the Maruti
casr and was dazzled due to light of the vehicle coming from the
opposite side and therefore, he could not control his vehicle,
which capsized and resultantly, the claimant received the
injuries.
7. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the learned
Tribunal believed that for the self negligency of the claimant, the
owner and the insurance company of the Maruti car cannot be
held liable to pay compensation.
8. Learned advocate for the appellant while accepting such
finding that the claimant was sole negligency in causing the road
accident, has relied upon the insurance policy at Exh.31 to
submit that the insurance company has taken the premium of
Rs.15/- for covering risk of legal liability of the driver. Therefore,
in view of judgment of Valiben (supra), the owner and insurance
company of the Maruti car cannot be held liable. Had the
insurance policy at Exh.31 shown that premium of the driver
has been taken and risk of the driver is purchased, then
certainly, the claimant would be entitled to get compensation
from his owner and insurer, but in the present case, the
documentary evidence indicates that premium of Rs.15/- has
been purchased for accident benefits for spouse and insured as
per IMT 4 accident benefit for non fare passengers. The column
under the head of Legal liability to driver stated is blank, which
indicates that no premium has been taken up for the legal
liability of the driver. In view of such circumstances, the
submission canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Dave that for the
self negligency of the claimant, his owner and insurer of Maruti
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4118/2009 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
car are liable to pay compensation, as the insurance company
has purchased the risk of the paid driver as per insurance policy
at Exh.31 does not survive.
9. In view of above, this Court finds no error in the impugned
judgment and award and accordingly, present First Appeal
stands rejected.
10. R & P, if any, to be sent back to the concerned Court
immediately.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
