Gujarat High Court
The United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Shantaben Wd/O Valabhai Danaji on 31 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4822/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4822 of 2022
================================================================
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
SHANTABEN WD/O VALABHAI DANAJI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 31/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal is at the behest of the
appellant - Insurance Company challenging judgment and
award dated 21.07.2022 passed in MACP No.200 of 2018.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 That, on 14.07.2008, the deceased was going in
jeep bearing registration No.GJ-01-HM-715 which was of his
ownership from Dhanera to Tharad and at that time, the driver
of the jeep was driving the same rashly, negligently and in full
speed endangering human life and had lost control over the
jeep and the accident had occurred at 21:00 hours. In the said
accident, the deceased suffered serious injuries and
succumbed to the injuries. The accident had occurred due to
the sole negligency of the driver of the jeep and complaint in
this regard has been filed with Tharad police station bearing
offence registration no.107/2008 and hence, the said petition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4822/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
was filed for getting the compensation from the opponent. At
the time of accident, the deceased was of 28 years and was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing business of electric
submersible pumps and electric pipes and items by the name
of Saraswati Sales and Service and was earning Rs.5,000/-
p.m. from the same and was also holding agricultural lands
and was also doing the animal husbandry work and for the
same also, was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. and hence, his total
income was Rs.10,000/- p.m. On account of untimely death of
deceased, his family became orphan and distraught and
suffered pain, shock and great monetary loss which cannot be
compensated in terms of money and therefore, on all these
grounds the claimants have claimed compensation from the
appellant herein.
3. Having heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati
for the appellant - United India Insurance Company Ltd. and
learned advocate Mr. Kaash Thakkar for the respondents -
original claimants, what could be noticed that the learned
Tribunal failed to consider that the claim petition is filed only
against the Insurance Company. The deceased Valaji Danaji
Patel was the owner of the erring vehicle. He was going on a
jeep bearing registration No.GJ-01-HM-715, which is owned by
him. The claim petition under Section 163 or 166 of the M.V.
Act has to be filed by the third party in vie of Section 147 of
the M.V. Act. The owner of the vehicle cannot claim
compensation from its own Insurance Company for the
jurisdiction of M.V. Act. Learned Tribunal totally erred in
granting compensation to the owner and directed its own
Insurance Company to pay compensation, therefore, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4822/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
judgment and award arrived at by the learned Tribunal is
unsustainable.
4. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. Kaash
Thakkar drawn the attention of this Court that the Insurance
Company in a policy of jeep has taken away the premium of
personal accident and liable to pay amount of Rs.2 Lac. In case
of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashalata Bhowmik and Ors.,
Civil Appeal No.9100 of 2018, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in such
circumstances, held that, if Rs. 2 Lac with interest is granted, it
would sub-serve the justice. Although such grant is not made
under the jurisdiction of M.V. Act but, for the interest of justice,
it has been granted in para 8 and 9 thereof, which read as
under :
"8. This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha (Smt)
and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 263, was considering a similar case where
the owner himself was driving the vehicle which due to his
negligence dashed with a tree on the roadside as a result of which
he died. The Court held that the claim petition filed by his LRs was
not maintainable. It was held thus:-
"10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the
reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself
was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not
involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was
driving. The question which arises for consideration is that
the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be
maintainable.
11. Liability of the insurer Company is to the extent of
indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an
injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of
property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any
liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the
question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4822/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
therefore, does not arise".
9. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the
appellant/insurer to pay the compensation determined by the
Tribunal. Since the indemnification extended to personal accident of
the deceased is limited to Rs. 2,00,000/- under the contract of
insurance, the respondents are entitled for the said amount towards
compensation. Hence, the appellant is directed to deposit the said
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from
the date of the Claim Petition till the date of deposit with the
Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today."
5. In the present case, learned Tribunal has awarded
Rs.4,62,834/-. Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty
submitted that the appellant has totally deposited
Rs.10,63,651/- pursuant to the order passed by this Court
dated 09.12.2022, which includes interest and cost, including
the statutory amount of Rs.25 Lac. He would further submit
that 30% amount has been disbursed to the claimants in view
of order dated 23.08.2023, which comes to Rs.3,19,095/-,
therefore, in view of that he would submit that the claimants
have already got more than Rs.2 Lac, which they were entitled
under the personal accident policy.
6. Having considered the above aspects and taking
the issue that the Insurance Company's liability cannot be
extended to indemnifying the death of the owner from the very
same road accident but, it is limited to an extent of
indemnifying the risk of the insured against the injured person
being a third person or in respect of damage of the property.
6.1 Resultantly, present First Appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4822/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
set aside and accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. The
claim petition stands dismissed with a clarification that the
amount which is already disbursed to the claimants shall not
be recovered. The amount which is lying in the FDR, including
the accrued interest therein, shall be returned back to the
Insurance Company, after deducting court fees.
6.2 Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
Dolly
