IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 751 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Versus RAJUBEN W/O DILIPSINH PRATAPSINH JHALA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 5 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,6 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 10/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Gandhinagar in MACP No.203/2007, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.19,92,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on

03.02.2007, deceased-Dilipsinh Pratapsinh was travelling along with his wife in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-18-T-5751. The said auto rickshaw was being driven by original opponent No.1/respondent no.6 herein in rash and negligent manner and at excessive speed, resultantly, he lost the control over the steering of the said auto-rickshaw and the said auto-rickshaw turned turtle, thereby causing the accident. As a result of the said accident, the deceased- Dilipsinh Pratapsinh sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries during treatment. The FIR being I C.R. No.6/2007 came to be lodged against original opponent no.1/owner and driver of the said auto-rickshaw at Rakhiyal Police Station. It is also the case of the original claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased-Dilipsinh Pratapsinh was aged about 32 years and he was working in Sargudi Primary School and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.8,744/-. Therefore, the claim petition for seeking the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- came to be filed.

3. On being served, the original opponent no.1 before the learned Tribunal filed the written statement at Exh.11 while the opponent no.2/insurance company before the learned Tribunal filed the written statement at Exh.15, thereby denying all the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Having considered the pleadings, evidence adduced 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.19,92,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant/insurance company has preferred the captioned appeal on the ground of its liability to satisfy the award.

6. The rule has been duly served upon the respondents but they have chosen not to appear before this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

8. At the outset, Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/insurance company submitted that the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award, as the driver of the offending auto-rickshaw was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. He further submitted that at the time of accident, nine persons were travelling in the offending auto-rickshaw. He further submitted that the seating capacity of the auto-rickshaw was only three passengers., therefore, the terms and conditions of the policy have been breached. Hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the insurance company on that ground alone. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appella