IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2968 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. MERAJBEN ISMILEBHAI RASULBHAI SHEKH &

ORS.

Versus AHMEMADBHAI GULAMBHAI MANSURI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Appellant(s) No. 2,3,4 UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 11/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 16.06.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in MACP No.431/2007, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,97,500/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum against the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount; however, the learned Tribunal had exonerated the respondent no.3/insurance company from satisfying the award.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on 06.08.2007, the deceased-Merajben Ismilebhai Shekh was travelling in a rickshaw bearing registration no.GJ-1-W-1628, which was being driven by respondent no.1 herein. Whey they reached at the place of accident, another rickshaw bearing registration no.GJ-23-T-497 came from opposite direction and dashed with the rickshaw, in which the deceased was travelling. Due to the impact of the said accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is the also the case of the claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 to 40 years and was a labourer. Therefore, the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.3,93,500/- came to be filed under Section 163-

A of the MV Act.

3. On being served, the respondent no.3/insurance company filed its written statement at Exh.18, thereby denying all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence led by the respective parties and the submissions canvassed by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,97,500/- as a compensation along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum against the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount; however, the learned Tribunal had exonerated the respondent no.3/insurance company from satisfying the award.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimants/appellants herein challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of exoneration of respondent no.3/insurance company from satisfying the award.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. Ms. Disha N. Nanavaty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of original claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that the insurance company was exonerated from satisfying the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the driver of the offending rickshaw was not holding the valid driving licence to drive the said rickshaw at the time of accident. She further submitted that having licence or no licence or invalid licence is not the ground to exonerate the insurance company from satisfying the award. She further submitted that the respondent no.1 was holding the valid driving licence but he could not renewed the licence, therefore, during the interregnum period when the accident took place, the driving licence was not valid but thereafter, the driving licence was renewed. She further submitted that the insurance company has examined one-Mr. Ratilal Dhanji