Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Bhanuben Rajubhai Loriya on 2 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1494/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1494 of 2015
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
BHANUBEN RAJUBHAI LORIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the Defendant(s) No. 8
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI(2133) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 02/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Insurance
Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and award dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Valsad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.89
of 2008, whereby, learned Tribunal has held appellant -
Insurance Company liable to pay compensation.
2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3. Learned advocate Ms.Rahevar for the appellant - Insurance
Company raised solitary contention that learned Tribunal has
wrongly assessed issue of license. It is submitted that accident
took place on 02.05.2008 and license to drive heavy goods
vehicle was renewed from 06.05.2008. It is submitted that in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1494/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025
undefined
view of Exh.35, it could be presumed that on the date of
accident, driver of vehicle was not holding license to drive heavy
goods vehicle, yet learned Tribunal did not notice this issue and
fasten liability upon insurance company to pay compensation.
This is main argument on the part of insurance company to
challenge impugned judgment and award.
4. Learned Tribunal has addressed this issue in para 10 of
the impugned judgment. It is in Gujarati, for better
understanding, it is translated in English as under :-
"10. Issue No. 4:-
In this case, application for compensation, no dispute has been raised
by the respondents regarding the occurrence of the accident. In the
present application, no clear documentary or oral evidence has been
produced showing that respondent No. 1 did not hold a driving license
on the date of the accident and the insurance license of respondent
No. 3 was cancelled or suspended by R.T.O. Considering the
certificate at Exhibit-35, it is stated that respondent No. 1 driver was
licensed to drive heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles
from 23/01/02 and the last renewal date was from 06/05/08 to
05/05/11. Under the circumstances, I believe that the submission
advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that the Respondent
No. 1 was not holding heavy goods vehicle license is not admissible. In
the present case, respondent No. 1 is the driver of the truck that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1494/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025
undefined
caused the accident, respondent No. 2 is the owner of the said truck,
whereas respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the said
truck. The insurance company has not raised any dispute that the
said truck was not insured by the existing Insurance Company on the
date of the accident. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is held that
all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount to the petitioners in this regard."
5. Insurance Company called RTP Officer, Valsad as its
witness and produced certificate at Exh.35. Certificate contains
particulars of driving license No.GJ-15/006445/05. Name of the
driving license holder is Santosh K Chhatoi. Date of issuance is
02.05.1998; for non transport vehicle it is 05.05.2011 and for
transport vehicle it is 05.05.2011. It is renewed on 06.05.2008
and driver was permitted to drive HGV from 23.01.2002. Learned
advocate Ms.Rahevar for the appellant - Insurance Company
argued that there is no evidence on record produced by the
claimant to establish that on the date of accident i.e.
02.05.2008, he was entitled to drive HGV.
6. Aforesaid particulars extracted from driving license
indicates that claimant was permitted to drive HGV from
23.01.2002. There is no contra evidence on record. Renewal of
license also took place. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act is
governing provision for renewal of driving license, according to
which renewal will take effect from date of expiry.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1494/2015 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2025
undefined
7. According to this Court, learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in believing that driver was authorized to
driver HGV on the date of accident. Licensing authority has
authorized him to drive HGV from 23.01.2002 by issuing license
and it is even proved from the evidence led by the Insurance
Company itself (Exh.35). In view of this, appeal filed by
insurance company raising doubt on the finding of learned
Tribunal in regard to license of the driver of vehicle is concerned,
is baseless and bereft of merit, deserves to be negated.
8. In view of above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
8.1 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 claimant, by account payee cheque /
NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
8.2 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
8.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
