Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Nareshkumar Javsing Bamaniya and Others – Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 2552, 2553, 2554, 2555, 2557, 2558, 2559, 2560, 2564, 2565 of 2014
Decided On : 30-04-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya.
For the Respondents: J.M. Talota, Mr. Hiren M. Modi.
Point of law: Insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by unauthorized person or the person driving the vehicle did not have valid licence. It was laid down that the owner of the offending vehicle has to plead and prove the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the motor vehicle and was having valid driving licence a the relevant time. The onus would shift on the insurance company only if and after the aforesaid initial burden is discharged by the other side
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 – Accident – Injuries - Compensation granted – Liability of insurance company – When Liable – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial legislation. It has to work in its ultimate analysis to the help and benefit of those who have suffered in vehicular accident. Keeping in view the object of the legislation and the other attendant aspects of this case, the dictum in Swaran Singh (supra) and Vinod Kumar Lamba (supra) could be properly applied. The reasonable course would be to follow the principle of pay and recover. Even-though, the appellant insurance company is held entitled to be absolved from liability for compensation, it is required in the interest of justice that in the first instance, the appellant insurance company pays the amount of compensation to the claimants and thereafter, it may effect recovery from the owner in accordance with law
Facts of the Case:
Appellant insurance company at the outset stated that the appellant was not challenging quantum part in judgment and award of the Tribunal in any of the cases - accident occurred claimant and other passengers had gone to a marriage ceremony. They all were returning towards village, travelling in a tractor attached with trolley - When tractor reached near the Sim of village Movaliya, an Eicher truck driven in rash and negligent manner came with excessive speed from behind and dashed with the trolley - The trolley alongwith the tractor turned turtle - As a result, claimant of this claim petition as well other travelers-claimants sustained serious injuries –
Finding of the Court:
Mere fact that the insurance policy was in operation, is no answer and would be of no avail. In the present case, when the facts showed to establish that the licence to drive was for limited period and the period was not extended and the occurrence of the accident was beyond the said validity prior of licence, the driver was not entitled to drive the light motor vehicle of the weight prescribed at the time of accident. It amounted to breach of conditions of policy. It could not be said that the initial burden to prove these essentials facts was discharged, rather the appellant company could establish its defence discharging the onus of proof from the evidence on record -Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial legislation - It has to work in its ultimate analysis to the help and benefit of those who have suffered in vehicular accident - Keeping in view object of legislation and the other attendant aspects of this case, the dictum in Swaran Singh (supra) and Vinod Kumar Lamba (supra) could be properly applied - Even-though, appellant insurance company is held entitled to be absolved from liability for compensation, it is required in interest of justice that in first instance, appellant insurance company pays amount of compensation to claimants - Impugned in respective appeals are set aside –
Result:Appeals allowed
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
1. All these First Appeals preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellant Insurance Company are directed against the judgment and awards all dated 29th June, 2013, delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Dahod, in the respective Motor Accident Claim Petitions.
2. Though different claim Petitions were filed by the claimants concerned, they all pertained to the same vehicular accident resulting. As the accident was one and the facts involved were similar and issues identical, all the Appeals therefore taken up for hearing together, and are being treated for disposal by this common judgment.
2.1 The first captioned First Appeal No. 2552 of 2014 arises out of judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 342 of 2010 dated 29th June, 2013. The claimants came to be awarded compensation of Rs. 85008/- with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till realisation of the amount.
2.2 All the cases were injury cases. The respective claimants in different claim petitions came to be awarded the compensation with 6% interest from the date of filling of claim petition till realization, challenged in the respective Appeals as under:
(i) First Appeal No. 2553 of 2014 is referable to the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 643 of 2007, in which the compensation of Rs. 8,13,000/- came to be awarded by the Tribunal.
(ii) First Appeal No. 2554 of 2014 is against the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 644 of 2007. Therein, the compensation of Rs. 71,472/- came to be awarded.
(iii) First Appeal No. 2555 of 2014 pertains to the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 645 of 2007, wherein the compensation of Rs. 64,272/- came to be awarded.
(iv) First Appeal No. 2557 of 2014 is directed against the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 648 of 2007, in which the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 71,760/-.
(v) First Appeal No. 2558 of 2014 is addressed to the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 649 of 2007. Therein, compensation of Rs. 91,448/-.
(vi) First Appeal No. 2559 of 2014 is preferred against the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 650 of 2007, in which the compensation of Rs. 81,788/- came to be awarded.
(vii) First Appeal No. 2560 of 2014 is against the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 651 of 2007. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 82,988/-
(viii) First Appeal No. 2564 of 2014 is referable to the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 682 of 2007, in which the compensation of Rs. 83, 480/- came to be awarded by the Tribunal.
(ix) First Appeal No. 2565 of 2014 is directed against the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 683 of 2007 of the Tribunal, in which the compensation of Rs. 1,03,636/- came to be awarded.
3. The representative facts are taken from Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 342 of 2020, relatable to the first captioned First Appeal. The accident occurred on 19.6.2007 at about 2.30 a.m. The claimant and other passengers had gone to a marriage ceremony. They all were returning from Rabdal and had been proceeding towards village Bordi, travelling in a tractor bearing No. GJ-20-B-884 attached with trolley bearing No. GJ-20-T-8346. When the tractor reached near the Sim of village Movaliya, an Eicher truck bearing Registration No. MP-9-GE-116 driven in rash and negligent manner came with excessive speed from behind and dashed with the trolley. The trolley alongwith the tractor turned turtle. As a result, the claimant of this claim petition as well the other travelers-claimants sustained serious injuries. The First Information Report was lodged. Different claim petitions were filed to result into the judgment and awards by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as aforesaid.
3.1 The Tribunal upon appreciation of relevant evidence came to conclusion that the driver of Eicher truck was ra
