Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 22647
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Gita Gopi, J
Kanubhai Ranchhodbhai Rabari – Appellant
Versus
Mahendrasinh Bhairavsinh Parmar – Respondent
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1733 of 2023 | R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2094 of 2023 | CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kaash K Thakkar, KK Thakkar, Rajesh B Soni
For the Respondents: JM Barot, Kirti S Pathak, Rathin Raval
A police officer in uniform traveling on duty in a goods vehicle is not a gratuitous passenger; insurers are liable for injuries arising out of the use of the vehicle, and no separate transport endorsement is required for LMV licenses for vehicles with a gross weight under 7,500 kg.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147, 165 - Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 122 - Liability of Insurance Company - Carriage of goods and representative in goods vehicle - A police officer in uniform traveling on duty in a goods carriage is permitted under state rules, creating a statutory right that overrides exclusion clauses in insurance policies. (Paras 10.3, 10.4)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 10 - Driving License - Requirement of endorsement - A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) is competent to drive a transport vehicle if the gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7,500 kg without any specific endorsement, as established by Supreme Court precedent. (Paras 8, 8.2)
(C) Compensation - Quantum - Enhancement - Determination of just compensation for paraplegic injuries includes loss of future income with future prospects, medical expenses, attendant charges, and loss of marriage prospects. (Paras 18.2, 18.3, 20)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, an employee of the state government, was injured when his motorcycle, which was being transported in a goods vehicle, fell on him after the vehicle overturned due to the driver's negligence. The tribunal initially exonerated the insurance company based on the claimant's status as a gratuitous passenger and technical issues regarding the driver's license and vehicle usage. The claimant sought enhancement, while the driver sought to set aside the award.
Findings of Court:
The court found the insurer liable, rejecting the 'gratuitous passenger' argument for a uniformed official on duty. It determined that the driver's license was valid for the vehicle's weight class and the accident arose out of the use of the vehicle. Compensation was significantly enhanced to reflect the claimant's permanent paraplegic condition and loss of future income.
Issues: Whether a uniformed official on duty traveling in a goods vehicle is a 'gratuitous passenger'; whether the insurer is liable for injury arising from goods carried in a vehicle; and whether a separate license endorsement is required for a light motor vehicle used as a transport vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The use of a motor vehicle has a wide connotation and covers stationary periods or accidents involving goods carried in the vehicle. State rules permitting specific classes of persons in goods carriages create statutory obligations that supersede conflicting insurance policy limitations. Lack of specific license endorsement for vehicles under 7,500 kg does not invalidate the insurer's liability.
Result: First Appeal of the claimant allowed in part; compensation enhanced.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual matrix of the accident and the status of the parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 11 , 13) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding liability, driving license validity, and employment status. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of driving license requirements for transport vehicles and the legality of carrying policemen in goods carriages. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. interpretation of 'use of motor vehicle' and establishing joint/several liability for the insurer. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. principles for assessing compensation including future prospects, disability, and attendant charges. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. final calculation and adjudication of the appeal. (Para 25 , 26) |
Modification of Judgment dtd. 17/09/2024 in R/FA/1733/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/10/2024
Learned Advocate Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar states that he proposes to withdraw this Note for Speaking to Minutes and under instructions, would file a necessary application.
Hence, the Note for Speaking to Minutes stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
==========================================================
ORAL JUDGMENT
| 1 | Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? | No |
| 2 | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | Yes |
| 3 | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? | No |
| 4 | Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? | No |
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JM BAROT(143) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3,5,6
1. First Appeal No.1733 of 2023 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahesana in M.A.C.P. No.125 of 2014 vide judgment and award dated 31.01.2023.
1.1 While First Appeal No.2094 of 2023 has been filed by the driver of Rickshaw No.GJ-2Y-6368, for quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 31.01.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahesana in M.A.C.P. No.125 of 2014, whereby he has been held liable to pay compensation along with owner of Rickshaw No.GJ-2Y-6368, as per R.C. Book, respondent no.3.
2. The facts of the case, as could be culled out from the judgment of the Tribunal are that, on 15.10.2013, the appellant policeman had gone to Mahesana for official work on Motorcycle No.GJ-2-G-650, and on their return from Mahesana, at about 5 O’ clock in the evening, near village Devrsan, the motorcycle got punctured, at around 6 O’ Clock in the evening the appellant saw one loading rickshaw passing on that road. Upon request of the appellant-claimant, opponent no.1, stopped his rickshaw being Registration No.GJ-2-Y-6368, and allowed to put the claimant’s motorcycle in the loading rickshaw. The appellant-claimant too was travelling in the said rickshaw with the motorcycle, and when they reached at the place of accident, the said rickshaw turned turtle bringing the claimant down on the ground and it is stated that motorcycle fell on the back of the appellant, and thereby sustained grievous injuries.
3. Mr. Kaash K.Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant-claimant submitted that the impugned accident happened when the appellant was on duty as a policeman and he was travelling as a part of his duty. Mr. Thakkar submitted that the appellant was 28 years of age doing his service in police department by earning fixed pay of Rs.5,300/- per month, which would become a regular pay scale as per the policy of the State Government.
3.1 Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that as per salary chart of the appellant-claimant provided by officer of police department at Exh.50, the salary of claimant between July, 2022 to December 2022 would be Rs.1,98,164/- and his salary for January, 2023 to June, 2023 would be Rs.2,03,953/-, and accordingly his y
