Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Thakor Moghiben Pashaji on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1437/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1437 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
THAKOR MOGHIBEN PASHAJI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award dated 03.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mahesana in MACP No.07 of
2008.
2. The facts of the case are that on 26.10.2007 at around
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1437/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
8:15 pm, the deceased was traveling in Indica Car No.
GJ 15 K 7579 from Mehsana towards Becharaji, when
the said car collided with an tree on the left side of the
road near Asjol Village. Due to the said accident, the
deceased was seriously injured and succumbed to his
injuries. Hence, the original claimants have filed the
aforesaid claim petition under Section 163A of the
Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.4,89,000/-.
3. Vide the said impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred
by the original claimants under Section 163A of the
Act, 1988 holding the original claimants entitled to an
amount of Rs.5,19,500/- with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of filing of such claim
petition till its actual realization with proportionate
costs.
4. This Court vide order dated 18.06.2014 noticing the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the
appellant/insurance company and the grounds raised
in the appeal, has admitted the appeal.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant/insurance company, while assailing the
judgment and award passed by the tribunal, has
contended that the tribunal has made an error in
considering the deceased as a paid driver of the car as
it was not proved that the deceased was serving the
owner of the car namely Kalubhai Patel as a driver and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1437/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
no documentary proof regarding the same has also
been produced by the claimants and on the contrary,
vehemently argued that he was working in Becharaji
Gram Panchayat. It was further argued that the
deceased was being the borrower of the car and not a
paid driver, his risk is not covered under the policy
and therefore the insurance company is not liable to
pay the compensation and lastly prayed to set aside
the impugned judgment and award passed by the
tribunal.
6. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Rathin Raval for the
appellant/insurance company and learned Counsel
Mr. Yogendra Thakur for the original claimants on the
dispute between the parties on narrow compass on the
issue of liability of the insurance company to pay the
compensation and perused the material available on
record impugned judgment and award, more
particularly, the findings and reason assigned by the
tribunal while deciding the issue of liability.
7. The tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record,
was satisfied that the deceased was working as Peon in
Becharaji Gram Panchayat and was also doing part
time work as a driver and held the insurance company
liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
Looking to the material available on record, the
tribunal has assigned satisfactory reasons while
holding the deceased as a driver and not a borrower.
Upon perusal of the record, it is clearly established
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1437/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
from the driving license produced vide exhibit 26 that
the deceased was holding a valid driving license at the
time of accident and from the insurance policy of the
Car involved in the accident, produced vide exhibit 27,
it was operative on the date of accident and it clearly
appears that the owner of the vehicle had paid an
additional premium of Rs.25/- under the head of the
driver. Once such additional premium is paid and in
view of the proven fact that the deceased was driving
the said car in the capacity of driver and not as a
borrower, the liability of the Insurance Company
extends to cover the risk of the person driving the
vehicle as a paid driver. Even if it is assumed that the
deceased was not a paid driver but was driving the car
with the permission of the owner, the Insurance
Company cannot escape its liability, since the risk of
the driver has been covered under the policy by virtue
of payment of the additional premium. The contention
of the Insurance Company that the deceased was a
borrower and had stepped into the shoes of the owner,
therefore, deserves to be rejected.
8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that
the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the
Insurance Company. The finding of the Tribunal does
not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting
interference by this Court.
9. Hence, the present appeal preferred by the Insurance
Company fails and the judgment and award passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1437/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
the tribunal is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.
10. The tribunal is hereby directed to disburse the entire
award amount, which is lying in the Fixed Deposit
after due verification.
11. R&P, if any, shall be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
Anuj
