[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Bharti Axa General Insurance Co Ltd vs Manoharlal Mamraj Bishnoi on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3498 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
MANOHARLAL MAMRAJ BISHNOI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 22/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the
impugned judgment and award dated 13.08.2012 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at
Nadiad, in M.A.C.P. No. 2189 of 2010, whereby the learned
Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.6,73,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the
captioned appeal as per the Claim Petition are summarized as
under:-
i. On 29.11.2010, Mr. Naranbhai Savabhai Parmar
(hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), was
driving a Maruti Swift Car bearing registration
No.GJ-1-BV-8282 on the expressway, from
Ahmedabad to Vadodara. The deceased was
driving the said Maruti Swift Car at very
moderate speed, by observing traffic rules. In the
meantime, a truck bearing registration no. RJ-07-
1G-3954, being driven by original opponent No.1
in a rash and negligent manner and at an
excessive speed, suddenly slowed down due to
some reason, as a result of which, the Maruti Car
being driven by the deceased, dashed into the
rear side of the truck. As a result of the said
vehicular accident, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries, and he succumbed to the said
injuries during treatment.
ii. It is the case of the original claimants before the
learned Tribunal that at the time of the accident,
the deceased was aged about 35 years and he was
gainfully engaged as driver of original opponent
No.4, thereby earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
Therefore, the original claimants preferred the
Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.8,00,000/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of
the Claim Petition, original opponent Nos.1 & 2
herein - driver & owner of the truck bearing
registration no. RJ-07-1G-3954 and original
opponent No.3 - insurer of the truck filed their
respective Written Statements at Exh.21 & 31,
thereby denying the averments made in the Claim
Petition, and contended that the accident had
occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving
on the part of the deceased himself. Original
opponent No.4 - driver of the Maruti Swift car
had chosen not to appear before the learned
Tribunal. Original opponent No.5 - insurer of the
Maruti Swift Car filed its Written Statement at
Exh.25, thereby contended that they not liable to
satisfy the award as there is breach of policy
conditions.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties
and the material available on record, the learned
Tribunal had framed the following issues for
determination:-
1. Whether the applicants prove that,
deceased died due to rash and negligent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
driving of the driver - opponent no.1 of the
vehicle involved in the vehicular
accident ?
2. Whether the applicants are entitled to get
compensation ? If yes, what amount and
from whom ?
3. What award and order ?
v. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on
record and the submissions advanced by the
learned counsels for the respective parties, the
learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition
and awarded a sum of Rs.6,73,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, as compensation, and held the
deceased himself negligent for causing the
accident. Original opponent Nos.4 - owner of the
Maruti Car and original Opponent No.5/appellant
herein - Insurer of the Maruti Car were held
jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award,
whereas, original opponent Nos.1 to 3 - owner,
driver and insurer of the truck were not held
liable to pay any compensation.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the original
opponent No.5/appellant herein - Insurance
Company of the Maruti Swift Car has preferred
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
the captioned appeal on the issue of negligence as
well as its liability to satisfy the award.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Ms. Masumi Nanavaty, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company vehemently
submitted that the learned Tribunal had not considered the
material on record and had wrongly decided the issue of
negligence. She contended that considering the manner of
occurrence of accident, the truck driver who suddenly applied
the break must have also been held contributorily negligent
for causing the accident. She further submitted that it is the
case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that the
truck driver had suddenly applied the break, as such, the
Maruti Car driven by the deceased dashed with the truck on
the rear side. She further submitted that the driver of the
truck ought to be held contributorily negligent for causing
the accident.
5. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant -
Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal held
the driver of the Maruti Swift car i.e., the deceased himself
negligent for causing the accident, therefore, the legal
representatives of the deceased cannot claim any
compensation for the self negligence of the deceased, as such,
contended that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
6. On the other hand, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the original claimants vehemently
submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly decided the
issue of negligence. He further submitted that considering the
oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred owing
to the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Swift Car. He
further submitted that so far as the question of self negligence
is concerned, that issue is no more res integra, as it has been
settled by the full bench of this High Court in the case of
Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/o Late Laxmabhai
Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) V. Kandla Dock Labour Board
reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243219.
7. Per contra, Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the original opponent No.3/respondent No.3 herein -
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited -
Insurance company of the truck vehemently submitted that
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. He
further submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly
considered the material available on record. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 relied
upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Nishan Singh V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
through Regional Manager, reported in 2018(6) SCC 765.
Having placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment, learned
counsel for the respondent No.3 - Insurance company
vehemently submitted that the findings returned by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
learned Tribunal is liable to be upheld. As such, he contended
that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in
passing the impugned judgment and award, therefore, the
instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and having perused the material
available on record, it is to be noted that the appellant -
Insurance Company has not disputed the factum of accident,
manner of occurrence of accident, age, income or quantum.
The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the
impugned judgment and award on the issue of negligence as
well as its liability to satisfy the award.
9. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the widow
of the deceased -Ms. Kusumben Naranbhai Parmar had filed
her affidavit in examination-in-chief at Exh.32, wherein she
stated that her husband was driving the Maruti Swift Car
bearing registration No.GJ-1-BV-8282 at the time of the
accident. She also stated that due to some reason, the driver
of the truck slowed down and applied the break, hence, the
Maruti car which was being driven by her husband dashed
with the said truck from behind. The FIR of the accident came
to be registered by the original opponent No.1 - Mr.
Manoharlal Mamraj Bishnoi, who is the driver of the truck.
The said FIR has been proved at Exh.40 before the learned
Tribunal. As per the contents of the said FIR, the accident had
occurred owing of the reason that the Maruti Swift car, hit the
truck of the complainant from behind. The panchnama of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
place of accident proved at Exh.46 further transpires that tyre
marks were found on the road for a stretch of 150 meters.
This fact itself suggests that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was driving the Maruti Car at an excessive speed, as
such, he could not control the car and as a result, hit the truck
from behind. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence on record had decided the
issue of negligence against the original claimants. Having
regard to the material on record, I am of the considered view
that the learned Tribunal had not committed any illegality in
deciding the issue of negligence. In Nishan Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the law mandates
maintaining "sufficient distance" between two vehicles
running in the same direction. In the case on hand, it is
evident that the driver of the Maruti Swift Car could not
maintain sufficient distance between his car and the truck,
therefore, he dashed with the rear side of the truck.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
in deciding the issue of negligence.
10. So far as the question of liability of the appellant -
Insurance Company of the Maruti car is concerned, it is to be
noted that the insurance policy of the said Maruti Swift Car
has been proved at Exh.58. Perusal of the said insurance
policy transpires that the appellant Insurance Company has
charged the premium of Rs.100/- under the head of composite
PA and a further premium of Rs.25/- under the head of LL
others. Therefore, the risk of the deceased was duly covered
under the insurance policy. Now the question as to whether
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
the deceased himself being negligent for causing the accident,
whether his legal representatives can claim compensation
from the Insurance Company, is no more res integra and the
issue has been settled by the full bench of this High Court in
the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (supra), wherein at
para no. 15, the full bench of this High Court has observed as
under :-
"In our opinion, by accepting additional
premium, the Insurance Company indemnifies
the owners for paid Driver and / or Conductor
and risk of Driver / Conductor is covered
under it. Upon death or injury caused to the
paid Driver and / or Conductor, the Insurance
Company would be liable to satisfy such claim
irrespective of the self negligence. Thus, the
observations made by the Division Bench in
the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya
& Anr (supra) lays down the correct law.
Reference is thus, answered accordingly."
11. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I am of the
considered view that the captioned appeal is devoid of any
merits and is liable to be dismissed. In view thereof, the
captioned appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
12. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
to the original claimants (deducting deficit Court fee, if any),
after due verification.
13. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the
Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned
Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings if any,
be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to
costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
