Gujarat High Court
Ghaniben Parmabhai Parmar vs Javidbhai Kadarbhai Memon on 3 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1613/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1613 of 2019
==========================================================
GHANIBEN PARMABHAI PARMAR
Versus
JAVIDBHAI KADARBHAI MEMON & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 03/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - original
claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Banaskantha District, Palanpur in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.204 of 2006.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 On 23.04.2005, the applicant was going from Palanpur to
Gola in vehicle Jeep No.GJ-16-C-5136 and when the said Jeep
reached near place of accident, driver of Jeep was driving vehicle
in excessive speed and lost control over steering and as a result,
the applicant sustained severe injuries.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1613/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Exoneration of insurance company is solitary contention
raised by learned advocate for the appellant - claimant.
Submission is canvassed on the ground that MACP No.203 of
2006 was filed before the very same Tribunal by another victim
of same road accident, whereby, learned Tribunal fasten liability
upon insurance company and ordered to pay compensation.
Learned Tribunal though referred same judgment passed by Co-
ordinate Tribunal but differed on the aspect of liability of
insurance company and thereby breached principles of judicial
propriety . Therefore, he submits that insurance company
should be fasten liability to pay compensation. Therefore, it is
submitted to allow the appeal.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar for Insurance Company
while supporting impugned judgment and award would submit
that judgment in MACP No.203 of 2006 was passed in absence
of National India Insurance Company Ltd. Therefore, finding
arrived by learned Tribunal in the said MACP would not bind on
Tribunal where certain defence has been raised by National
Insurance Company Ltd. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar referred
to para 21 of the impugned judgment and argued that policy of
jeep was liability only policy. The claimant did not fall within
definition of third party as claimant being occupant of the jeep
and he could not be considered as third party. No premium for
occupant is paid. In view of this, the claimant cannot be entitled
to seek compensation from insurance company. Therefore, it is
submitted to dismiss the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1613/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and
perusal of evidence on record, it can be noticed that learned
Tribunal has assessed and awarded compensation of
Rs.44,270/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of petition till
realization. The award is too small. From the very selfsame road
accident another occupant of jeep received injury filed claim
petition under section 166 of MV Act vide MACP No.203 of 2006.
Process was served to National Insurance Company Ltd. Despite
defence of policy being liability only policy, National Insurance
Company Ltd. did not choose to contest said claim petition.
Ultimately, learned Tribunal after assessing evidence on record
was justified to fasten liability on insurance company to pay
compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar could not point out
whether judgment in MACP No.203 of 2006 has been challenged
by the insurance company or not. Principle of estoppel applies
and insurance company having satisfied award passed in MACP
No.203 of 2006 cannot quarrel and raise defendant in MACP
No.204 of 2006 filed by another co-passenger of jeep.
7. In nutshell, insurance company since satisfied claim of one
of the co-passenger, it cannot deny to pay compensation on the
ground that policy of jeep is liability only policy. Principle of
judicial propriety also demands that learned Tribunal ought to
have respected finding given by Co-ordinate Tribunal since it is
not disturbed by higher forum. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal ought to have fasten
liability on insurance company to pay compensation. Error much
less understanding of law has crept and deserves to be corrected
by allowing this appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1613/2019 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The
appellant / claimant would be entitled to recover compensation
of Rs.44,720/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of claim
petition till realization jointly and severally from the opponents of
claim petition. Respondent no.2 - Insurance Company shall
deposit entire decreetal amount including interest and cost
within six weeks form today before the learned Tribunal
concerned. Upon deposit of deecretal amount, 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.
9. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
10. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
11. Since above order is passed in peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, it would not be referred as precedent
in other matter.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
