IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2569 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

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

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Versus LAXMIBEN DAYABHAI DAMOR & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Date : 11/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The captioned Appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Sabarkantha at Modasa in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.19 of 2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

2. The succinct facts which led to filing of the captioned appeal, as narrated in the claim petition, are that on 4^th November, 2004, the husband of the claimant No.1 and father-in- law - Sambhubhai, Nephew - Karanbhai and Ishwarbhai was travelling in a TATA Spacio car bearing Registration No.RJ-27-TR- 513 from Dhansura to Ahmedabad to receive Mansinghbhai Damor at Ahmedabad Airport. The said car was hired in order to receive the said Mansinghbhai Damor at Ahmedabad Airport. When they were travelling in the said car, the driver / respondent No.5 herein started to drive the said car in a rash and negligent manner, resultantly, he lost the control over the steering, and hence the said car turned turtle. As a result of the said accident, the husband of the claimant No.1 received the grievous injuries and he was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment.

3. Having been served with the notices of the claim petition, respondent No.3 filed the written statement at Exh.13, thereby denying the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for rejection of the claim petition. Opponent Nos.1 and 2 have chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal.

3.1. Having considered the pleadings, the evidence adduced on record and the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the Appellant - Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has preferred the captioned appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Amar Prajapati appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr.V.C. Thomas for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently submitted that it is the case of the claimant that at the time of accident, they had hired the offending vehicle in order to receive one Mansinghbhai Damor from the Ahmedabad Airport. He further submitted that the policy of the offending vehicle has been proved on record at Exh.54. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the limitation of policy whereby the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award if the vehicle is used for hire or reward other-than the purpose of driving tuition in case of a private car. He further submitted that the terms and conditions of the package policy have also been proved on record by the Officer of the Insurance Company namely Kanjibhai Punjabhai Pandya, who stepped into the witness Box and whose deposition was recorded at Exh. 53. He submitted that he deposed before the learned Tribunal that the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award as the vehicle was used in violation of the terms and conditio