IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 307 of 2022 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 311 of 2022 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 308 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2021 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 308 of 2022 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 310 of 2022 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 312 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

==========================================================

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus DIVALIBEN MANGALBHAI CHAVDA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,6 MR TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2.1,2.2,2.3,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 03/12/2025 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT [1.0] Since all these appeals are filed assailing the impugned common judgment and award arising from a common accident, they are being heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and for the sake of convenience and brevity, facts from First Appeal No.307 of 2022 are taken.

[2.0] By way of present group of First Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”), the appellant – The United India Insurance Company Limited – original opponent No.3 has assailed the impugned common judgment and award dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.27, Ahmedabad (for short “learned Tribunal”), whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to partly allow the claim petitions by holding the driver of the Jeep No.GJ-01-BK-4972 solely negligent for the accident.

[3.0] The details of claim petition and its corresponding First Appeal as well as the issue raised therein are as under:

Sr. First MACP No. Issue raised No. Appeal No.

1. 307/2022 1184 of 2001 Employee of the vehicle is not covered Illegal use of government vehicle As the deceased was aged 54 years, prospective income ought to have been considered at 15% instead of

30%

2. 308/2022 292 of 2002 Employee of the vehicle is not covered Claimant is the owner of the vehicle involved as per the case of the claimant and hence, cannot claim against his own insurer Claimant is the judgment debtor

3. 310/2022 1182 of 2001 Employee of the vehicle is not covered [4.0] The brief facts of respective claim petitions is that on

20.12.2000 at about 1.30 p.m., claimants and deceased were going from Ahmedabad to Delhi sitting in Jeep No.GJ-01-BK-4972 and when the said jeep was passing near Kanuvada, near Shrinathji Hotel, one Ox came on road and as the offending jeep was in full speed, it got turtled and went into pit and thus, the accident occurred causing grievous injuries to the passengers travelling in the offending jeep. That, on account of the said accident, two persons died and other persons sustained serious injuries. Pursuant thereto, the legal heirs and representatives of deceased persons as well as injured claimants filed respective claim petitions and after appreciating the evidence led, the learned Tribunal was pleased to hold the driver of offending jeep to be sole negligent and partly allowed the claim petitions. Being aggrieved with the finding of the learned Tribunal holding the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending Jeep to be sole negligent, the appellant herein –

insurance company has filed the present batch of First Appeals.

[5.0] Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval appearing for the appellant herein – original opponent No.3 has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the appellant – insurance company with 100% liability for the accident. He has submitted that the appellant – insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as the de