SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAUNA M. BHATT, J.
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Babulal Mohanbhai Vala & Others - Defendants
R/First Appeal No. 529 of 2012 With R/First Appeal No. 530 of 2012
Decided On : 03-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a valid and effective license for the specific class of vehicle being driven absolves the insurance company from liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:

Insurance Company - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173 - Section 166 - Section 2(10) - Section 2(27) - Section 2(28) - Section 3 - Section 10

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of Vijayaben and serious injuries to her minor daughter Nikita. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, holding the insurance company liable. The insurance company appealed, arguing that the driver of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective license as mandated under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the driver of the motorcycle did not hold a valid and effective license to drive a motorcycle, as required by the Act. As a result, the insurance company was absolved from liability for the compensation awarded to the claimants.

Issues: The issues raised for consideration were: (1) Whether the driver of the motorcycle held a valid and effective license to drive the motorcycle on the date of the accident, and (2) If not, whether the insurance company was liable for the compensation as directed by the tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, including Section 2(10), Section 2(27), Section 2(28), Section 3, and Section 10, to establish that the driver must hold a valid and effective license for the specific class of vehicle being driven. The court cited precedents and held that the absence of a valid license absolved the insurance company from liability.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the judgment and award of the tribunal, absolving the insurance company from liability for the compensation. The amount deposited by the insurance company was ordered to be released with accrued interest, and any amount already disbursed to the claimants was not to be recovered.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed these appeals under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (‘the Act’ for short), challenging the judgment and award dated 15.10.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Morbi in MACP Nos. 175 of 2009 and MACP No.176 of 2009 respectively. First Appeal No. 529 of 2012, arises out of MACP No.175 of 2009 and First Appeal No. 530 of 2012, arises out of MACP No. 176 of 2009. Both these first appeals are filed by the insurance company challenging the liability fastened on it, for the payment of compensation.

2. Brief facts, arising from the record are as under:

2.1. On 24.04.2009 at around 02:30 pm, Vijayaben with her minor daughter Nikita were traveling on a motor-cycle no. GJ-3CJ-5293, driven by Rambhai-husband of Vijayaben and father of Nikita. When they reached Rajpar road, near Jaydev oil industry, one tractor no. GJ-10-AF-0086, came with full speed in rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake the motor-cycle. While overtaking, it dashed with the motor-cycle. On account of impact of dash, the pillion riders Vijayaben and Nikita fell down where, Vijayaben died on the spot and Nikita sustained serious injuries. FIR was lodged before Morbi Taluka Police Station being CR No. 54 of 2009 and panchnama was also drawn. The original claimants filed two claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act, one in case of deceased Vijayaben (MACP No.175 of 2009), seeking compensation of Rs. 4 Lacs and another in case of minor Nikitaben (MACP No.176 of 2009), seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

3. In the claim petitions, opponent no.1 is the owner of Hero Honda motor-cycle no. GJ-3CJ-5293; opponent no.2 is Insurance Company of Hero Honda motor-cycle no. GJ-3CJ-5293; opponent no.3 is the owner of tractor no. GJ-10AF-0086 and opponent no.4 is the driver of motor-cycle no. GJ-3CJ-5293. It is also noticed that though two vehicles were involved in the accident, one Tractor bearing registration no. GJ-10AF-0086 and another motorcycle bearing registration no GJ-3CJ-5293, as tractor no. GJ-10AF-0086, was not insured with any of the insurance company, no other insurance company except appellant herein was joined as party respondent.

4. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,73,300/- in case of the deceased Vijayaben (MACP No. 175 of 2009), and Rs.44,300/- in case of minor Nikita (MACP No. 176 of 2009). In both the cases compensation was awarded with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and respondent nos.1 to 4 were jointly and severally held liable for the payment.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.10.2011, the Insurance Company has filed these appeals.

6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellant-Insurance Company. Despite service of rule, none appeared for the respondents no.1 (owner of motor cycle no GJ-3CJ-5293), respondent no. 2(driver of motor cycle), respondent no3. (owner of tractor no. GJ-10-AF-86) and respondents no.4 to 4.4 (original claimants). Before the tribunal also none appeared for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. As both these appeals are arising out of common judgment and award dated 15.10.2011, for the same accident, with the consent of learned advocate for the appellant, they are heard and decided together.

7. Appearing for the Insurance company Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. He submitted that, the driver of the motor-cycle was not possessing a valid and effective license as mandated under section 3 read with section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Referring to Exh.35, he submitted that the driver of the motor-cycle-Ramabhai Lakhubhai Jariya was possessing license to drive non-Transport vehicle as well as transport vehicle for the period from 16.10.2007 to 15.10.2010. No endorsemen

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            Judicial Analysis

            AI

            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top