Gujarat High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Legal Heirs Of Decd. Kanjibhai ... on 8 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1104 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. KANJIBHAI BACHUBHAI TALPADA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Defendant(s) No.
1,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.6.1,3.6.2,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 08/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the
appellant - original opponent No.4 against the impugned
judgment and award dated 07.03.2013 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.613 of 2009, whereby the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandip C. Shah for
the appellant-original opponent No.4 and learned advocate
Mr.Vatsal Ruparel for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli for
respondent Nos.1, 3.1 to 3.6, 3.6.1, 3.6.2 and 4. Though
served, none appeared for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6.
3. Brief Facts narrated in the present First Appeal
are as under:-
3.1 on 17.02.2009, deceased Kanjibhai Bachubhai
Talpada was travelling in Truck bearing registration No.GJ-
7X-1424. At about 10.00 a.m. when the said truck reached
near the place of accident i.e. Ahmedabad -Rajkot National
Highway Road, near Reliance Petrol Pump, a truck bearing
registration No.TN-28P-4954 dashed with the aforesaid
truck. Resultantly, deceased sustained serious injuries and
succumbed. FIR was lodged against the driver of Truck
No.GJ-7X-1424.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
3.2 Legal heirs/representatives of deceased filed
claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,57,833/- before
the learned Tribunal. Opponent No.1 - owner of Truck
No.GJ-7X-1424 though served, did not contest claim
petition. Insurance Company of the said Truck appeared
and filed a Written Statement at Ex.16. Opponent No.3-
owner of Truck No.TN-28P-4954 though served, did not
contest the claim petition. Insurance Company of the said
Truck appeared and filed a Written Statement at Ex.18.
Claimant examined himself at Ex.26 and produced
documents such as complaint, Panchnama of the scene of
accident, Inquest Panchnama, Postmortem Report and
other documentary evidence in support of claim petition.
After considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal
partly allowed the claim petition and awarded
compensation of Rs.3,90,300/- with interest at the rate of
8% to be recovered from opponent Nos.1, 3 and 4 jointly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
and severally and claim petition against opponent No.2
came to be rejected.
3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, appellant - original
opponent No.4 filed present First Appeal challenging the
negligence attributed to the driver of truck bearing
registration No.TN-28P-4954.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted
that the FIR was filed against the driver of truck bearing
registration No.GJ-7X-1424 who dashed from behind. It is
further submitted that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate
the Panchnama and FIR and erroneously held the driver of
Truck bearing registration No.TN-28P-4954 to be negligent
in the occurrence of accident.
4.1 Reliance has been placed by learned advocate
for the appellant in the case of National Insurance
Company vs. Sinitha reported in 2012 SAR (Civil) Page 32
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
and submitted that it was open for opponent to prove that
either claimant himself was negligent or other driver of
vehicle was negligent in the happening of accident. In
nutshell, challenge against impugned judgment and award
is on the ground of negligence being attributed against the
driver of truck bearing registration No.TN-28P-4954.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vatsal Ruparel
for claimants has supported the judgment and award and
submitted that the claim application was filed under
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the
compensation has to be awarded on structured formula
and the question of negligence need not be gone into.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the materials available on
record. The question which is required to be considered in
the present First Appeal is whether, when an application
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
for compensation filed under Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, is it open for the Insurance Company
to challenge the award on the ground of attribution
negligence? The issue is no more res-integra in the case of
United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar
reported 2007, it is held that grant of compensation under
Section 163A of Act is on the basis of structured formula
is in nature of a final award and the adjudication
thereunder is required to be made without any
requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner
of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident.
8. In the case of Sunil kumar (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court after considering the various other decisions
on the question of negligence where the claim application
is filed under Section 163A of the Act, has observed in
paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 which are reproduced hereunder:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
"8.From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of
compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis
of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award
and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made
without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the
driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This
is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid
section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible
defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the
claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such
defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or
to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to
be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to
the very legislative object behind introduction of Section
163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a
limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to
overcome situations where the claims of compensation on
the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time.
In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the
Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring
a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the
proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not
only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative
intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising
by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the
Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of
negligence on the part of the victim.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled
propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
present First Appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1104/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
10. Record and proceedings, if any, received, be
sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
