[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Dayaben Shamjibhai Makwana on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3809/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3809 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
DAYABEN SHAMJIBHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJNI H MEHTA(468) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 20.03.2014, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in MACP No.273/2012, whereby the
learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,36,000/- as a
compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the present appeal are that on
03.05.2012 at about 3:15 am, the deceased-Shamjibhai was sitting on
the stationary tractor bearing registration no.GJ-11-M-8949 and
showing the way of Vangar to Khera, in the meantime, the driver of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3809/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
truck bearing registration no.GJ-14-GB-56 came thereby driving his
truck in rash and negligent manner, endangering the human life and hit
the tractor-trailer at its rear side. Resultantly, the deceased sustained
serious injuries and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries.
3. On being served with the notices of the claim petition, the
appellant/insurance company of the tractor filed the written statement at
Exh.13 before the learned Tribunal and thereby admitted the accident
and involvement of the offending vehicles and took the plea that the
driver of the truck was responsible for causing the accident. The
insurance company of the truck had also filed the written statement at
Exh.22 and thereby denied the averments made in the claim petition in
toto and took the defense of breach of policy condition and prayed for
rejection of claim petition.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is the case of the composite
negligence and the learned Tribunal held all the opponents jointly and
severally liable to satisfy the award of Rs.4,36,000/- along with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award dated 20.03.2014, the appellant/insurance company of the tractor
preferred the appeal thereby challenging the impugned judgment on the
ground of its liability to satisfy the award.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3809/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
7. Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/insurance company of the tractor vehemently submitted that
at the time of accident, the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the
tractor, therefore, the insurance company of the tractor is not liable to
satisfy the award. He further submitted at the most that the insurance
company of the tractor can be directed first to satisfy the award and
thereafter be permitted to recover the said amount from the driver and
owner of the tractor as well as the driver, owner and insurance company
of the offending truck. He further submitted that the award in question is
required to be modified to that extent.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the original claimants vehemently submitted that in the
present case, the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the truck and at the time of accident, the
deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, therefore, he
cannot be held liable for the negligence. He further submitted that even
otherwise the claim petition was instituted under the provisions of
Section 163-A of the MV Act, wherein the issue of negligence is not
required to be looked into. He further submitted that the insurance
company of the tractor may be directed to first satisfy the award and
thereafter may recover the same from the other respondents.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having regard to the fact that the claim petition was filed
under the provisions of Section 163-A of the MV Act, therefore, the
question of deciding the negligence does not arise and therefore, the
question of determining the extent of negligence of both vehicles is also
irrelevant. So far as the fact that at the time of accident, the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3809/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, this fact is not disputed by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimant. Thus,
considering the fact that at the time of accident, the deceased was
sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, therefore, having regard to the
ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
Shivraj Vs. Rajendra & Ors., reported in 2018 ACJ 2755 and V.
Renganathan & Anr. Vs. Branch Manager, United India Insurance
Company Limited & Anr., reported in 2023 ACJ 623, it would be just
and proper if at the first instance, the insurance company of the tractor
is directed to satisfy the award and thereafter may recover the same
from the other respondents. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and
award is modified to that extent.
10. In view of the above discussions, the present appeal stands
allowed partly to the above extent. The appellant/insurance company of
the tractor is directed to first satisfy the award and thereafter to recover
the same from the other respondents i.e. driver and owner of the tractor
and driver, owner and insurance company of the truck before the
learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire
amount, after deducting deficit of Court fee, if any, after due verification.
The amount, if any, lying deposited with the registry of this Court, the
same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith.
No order as to costs.
11. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
