Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Manishbhai Ganeshbhai Dabhi on 13 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3593/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3593 of 2024
==========================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
MANISHBHAI GANESHBHAI DABHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMAL SHAH for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 16.7.2024
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.237 of 2018.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the
learned Tribunal in facts of the case, erred in fastening liability
upon the insurance company. It is also submitted that the
original opponent No.1 was the driver-cum-owner of the
offending vehicle involved in the road accident. The process was
served to him, but he did not appear before the learned Tribunal.
The contention of the insurance company is that at the time of
the road accident, the opponent No.1 was not holding valid and
effective driving licence to drive the geared motorcycle. He would
further submit that the owner of the vehicle was issued notice
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3593/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
vide Exh.49 to produce the copy of the licence and the same has
been served to owner in view of acknowledgment produced at
Exh.48, but the owner of the offending vehicle has not produced
licence, which led to inference that the driver-cum-owner of the
offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving
licence at the time of road accident. Therefore, he would submit
that the learned Tribunal could believe absence of licence and
exonerate the insurance company. Alternatively, order of pay
and recover may be passed. Upon such submission, he prays to
allow the First Appeal.
3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah would
submit that on inference, it cannot be believed that the opponent
No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the
time of road accident. He would further submit that the
insurance company except issuing notice and acknowledgment
receipt at Exhs.48 and 49 did nothing to prove that opponent
No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the
time of road accident. He would further submit that the learned
Tribunal has discussed this issued in para 10(b) of the
impugned judgment and award and fastened the liability upon
the insurance company to pay compensation. Thus, the learned
Tribunal has committed no error much less error of
understanding and therefore, present First Appeal may be
dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties,
what could be noticed that the insurance company has not led
any oral evidence to buttress his contention that driver-cum-
owner was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3593/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
time of road accident. Learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar stressed
upon Exhs.48 and 49 to submit that driver of the offending
vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the
time of road accident. Perusal of these two documents indicate
that the notice was issued by Mr. Viraj Doshi to Ganeshbhai
Dabhi to produce effective and valid driving licence. The
insurance company has produced the window receipt of such
notice at Exh.48. Learned advocate for the appellant has further
argued that the insurance company has proved that the driver of
the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving
licence at the time of road accident. In absence of the
acknowledgment issued by the postal department, it cannot be
believed that notice issued by the insurance company at Exh.49
has been duly served to the owner of the offending vehicle.
5. It is to be noted that there is difference between
presumption and proof. The insurance company is believing
upon presumption, whereas the Court requires proof. The
insurance company intended that the Court should believe
absence of valid and effective driving licence on presumption.
However, there is no evidence on record to prove that the original
opponent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence
at the time of road accident. The insurance company can easily
secure the copy of the charge sheet to show that offence u/s 3
and 181 of the MV Act have been investigated by the
investigating officer for absence of the driving licence.
6. Another contention of learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar that
the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the learned
Tribunal is on higher side does not survive, as the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3593/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
Tribunal has taken up monthly income of the deceased to
Rs.8500/- and the rate of minimum wage at the time of road
accident for the skilled worker was Rs.8388/-.
7. For the foregoing reasons, present First Appeal fails and
stands dismissed.
7.1 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest
thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque /
NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
7.2 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
7.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
