Gujarat High Court
Manubhai Nanubhai Sihora vs Dharmendrasinh Amarsinh Chudasama on 6 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH Court OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 143 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
MANUBHAI NANUBHAI SIHORA & ORS.
Versus
DHARMENDRASINH AMARSINH CHUDASAMA & ANR.
======================================
Appearance:
MR YN RAVANI(718) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 06/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 9th October, 2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar, in MACP no.602 of 2006. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has dismissed Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, holding that the deceased himself, being a tortfeasor, was not entitled to claim compensation for his own wrong, in view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of original claimant.
2. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants and the grounds raised in the appeal memo, this Court vide order dated 12 th February, 2015 had admitted the appeal. The record and proceedings were called for. The notice of admission of appeal was waived by the learned advocate on record for respondent no.2 - the insurance company. The notice of admission of appeal is reported to have been duly served upon respondent no.1 - the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, however, has chosen not to contest the present appeal.
3. Subsequently, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta learned advocate, with Mr. Rushang D. Mehta, learned advocate representing respondent no.2 - the insurance company, has entered their appearance. With the able assistance of the learned Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined advocates on record for the respective parties, the appeal has been peremptorily heard finally.
4. Mr. Raj A. Jadeja, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Y. N. Ravani, learned advocate on record for the appellant, and has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and order by submitting that the Tribunal committed serious error in dismissing the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act, 1988. It was submitted that while dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal has held that the deceased was the driver and not the owner of the auto- rickshaw. However, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Sinitha and others, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 356, observed that it shall be open for the Tribunal to consider the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, on 'the fault' ground. According to the learned advocate, the Tribunal has misconstrued the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinitha (supra). 4.1 The attention of this Court was invited to the fact that initially the claim petition preferred under Section 163A of the Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined Act, 1988, was entertained by the Tribunal by passing judgment and award dated 19th December, 2009, holding the opponents viz. the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- to the claimants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the insurance company had preferred an appeal which was registered as First Appeal no.1279 of 2010 before this Court, which came to be decided vide order dated 7 th March, 2012. While issuing appropriate directions of remand, the Hon'ble High Court had considered the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly in para 6 in the case of Sinitha (supra), and had directed the Tribunal to decide it afresh.
4.2 After the aforesaid proceedings being remanded, the claimants have once again produced on record the evidence of Bodiben (applicant no.1) at Exh.46 and the brother of the deceased at Exh.50. The attention of this Court was invited to the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses who had categorically contended before the Tribunal that though the said rickshaw was of the ownership of one Dharmendrasinh Amarsinh Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined (opponent no.1), however, the deceased was engaged as driver of the said rickshaw and was paid monthly salary. The brother of the deceased in his cross-examination had also admitted that the said rickshaw was taken on installment from Bhupatbhai.
4.3 The attention of this Court was invited to the evidence of the owner of the vehicle who has entered the witness box, and his evidence has been recorded at Exh.51. In his deposition, the opponent no.1 has stated that the deceased was engaged as a driver and he used to pay a monthly salary to the deceased. It was emphasized that in the RC book, his name appeared as the owner of the vehicle and the possession of the vehicle is with him. However, in his cross-examination though admitted the fact that the said vehicle was sold to the deceased on installment, on his re-examination at the instance of the claimants, he has reiterated that in the RC book, his name appears as the owner of the vehicle and there is no documentary proof of the fact of the vehicle being sold to the deceased.
4.4 Learned advocate had further invited my attention to the Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined applications submitted at Exhs.54 and 55 seeking permission of the Tribunal to examine the original complainant of FIR bearing I-CR. no.2 of 2006 and the investigating officer. On such applications, the investigating officer - Mr. Kishorsinh Jivabhai Gohil, has been examined as a witness, whose evidence has been recorded at Exh.56. Through the said witness, relevant documents in the nature of the statement of the complainant and his further statements at Exhs.57 and 58 have been produced on record. The abated summary report submitted by the investigating officer has also been brought on record at Exh.59. The statement of the owner of the vehicle recorded on 4th January, 2006 by the investigating officer has also been produced on record at Exh.60. In the aforesaid statement, it was stated that the vehicle was given on rent for a period of six months to the deceased. Referring to the written arguments submitted on record at Exhs.28, 61, 63 and 64, the learned advocate had submitted that all throughout, the case put forward by the claimants was that the deceased was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was of the ownership of opponent no.1. Despite the aforesaid cogent material being brought on record, the Tribunal had noted that opponent no.1 has further Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined admitted that Bhupatbhai had sold his rickshaw to Manubhai Nanubhai Shihora on installment and the police has not recorded his statement, which is contrary to the evidence on record.
4.5 Learned advocate had therefore submitted that considering the fact that the deceased was the driver of the vehicle, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 and the other precedents as relied upon by the learned advocate for the insurance company in the facts of the case. 4.6 Learned advocate had lastly referred to the policy produced on record at Mark-24/1 and had submitted that, in fact, the insurance company has recovered a premium towards compulsory personal accident coverage to the owner- cum-driver of the insured vehicle, and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated the respondent - insurance company from its liability to pay the amount of compensation. He has therefore urged this Court to quash and set aside the Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined impugned judgment and award and to allow the appeal by awarding an appropriate amount of compensation in the facts of the case, to be recovered from the original opponents jointly and severally with appropriate interest and cost.
5. Mr. Rushang D. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.2 - insurance company, has forcefully submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record, more particularly the evidence of opponent no.1 who has in his cross-examination fairly conceded to the fact that the vehicle was sold to the deceased on installment. Learned advocate had further invited my attention to the order dated 7th March 2012 passed by this Court in First Appeal no.1279 of 2010, and has submitted that considering the relevant observations made in the case of Sinitha (Supra), the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to decide afresh. Thus, considering the defense raised by the respondent - insurance company, they were permitted to raise the defense of defeating the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act by pleading and establishing a fault ground. It is in light of the aforesaid directions, the respondent - insurance company has led further evidence, Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined inasmuch as the judgment and award passed in the cognate claim petition preferred at the instance of the injured passenger, being MACP no.581 of 2006, which was decided vide judgment dated 25th July, 2013, was produced on record at Mark 62/1. Inviting my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence, the learned advocate had pointed-out that having appreciated the evidence on record, the Tribunal in the cognate claim petition held the deceased, who was the driver of the vehicle, to be negligent towards the occurrence of the accident. It was therefore submitted that the respondent - insurance company has established on record by cogent material that the deceased himself was a tortfeasor, and therefore, considering the well-settled principles that the deceased being a tortfeasor and wrongdoer cannot be permitted to seek compensation for his own wrong; no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma (supra) in the facts of the case by holding that the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner. He has therefore submitted that the insurance company has rightly not been held liable to pay any amount of compensation. Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined
6. In rejoinder, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550. It was submitted that considering the facts of the case, the Court has held that since the policy produced on record suggests that the personal accident coverage was extended to the owner-driver, which was confined to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Court has issued appropriate directions holding the claimants entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the contract of insurance to be realized from the respondent insurance company. Learned advocate had therefore submitted that applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case, where admittedly the premium of Rs.100/- has been realized towards the insurance coverage of personal accident to the owner-cum-driver of the insured vehicle, the impugned judgment and award is required to be quashed and set aside by issuing appropriate directions by awarding compensation to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate cost and interest. He has therefore urged to alternatively issue appropriate directions in this regard.
Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have carefully considered their arguments in light of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal. I have also re-appreciated the evidence on record. Considering the arguments of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the short question which arises for consideration of this Court in the present appeal is as to whether the Tribunal committed any error in dismissing the claim petition preferred under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the facts of the case and evidence on record?
8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid point for determination, it would be appropriate to note at the outset that admittedly the claim petition was preferred under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the instance of the original claimants who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driving the auto-rickshaw, which is the vehicle involved in the accident. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased has succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained during the course of driving of the insured vehicle, which is admittedly insured with respondent no.2 - insurance Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined company. Having noted the aforesaid admitted facts, it would be appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:
"163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub- section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule."
Section 163A was introduced as an additional mode of awarding compensation to the victims of accident whose Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined annual income was below Rs.40,000/-. The provision as regards no-fault liability was inserted having regard to the fact that in some cases it was noticed that rash or negligent driving causing death or permanent disablement could not be proved. Thus, it was meant to give quick relief to the claimant/s as compensation was mainly based on structured formula.
9. It is equally settled legal position that for a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or object that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought was due to wrongful act, neglect, or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. However, the basic requirement to fix liability of insurance company to pay compensation still remained to be established. In order to establish the liability of the insurance company in terms of the contract of the insurance, the deceased has to be a 'third party' in order to entertain a claim under Section 163A of the Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various decisions including in the case of Ningamma (supra) and New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Sadanand Mukhi & others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417. Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined It has been held that the owner of the vehicle or his legal representatives or the borrower of the vehicle cannot raise a claim for an accident in which there was no negligence on the part of the insured vehicle. The said principle is mainly based on the premise that the borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner, and therefore, the borrower of the vehicle or his legal representatives are not entitled to seek compensation from the insurer under the Act. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkhiladi (supra). The facts of the case suggest that the deceased was the driver of the insured vehicle which he had borrowed from its registered owner and had met with an accident with another vehicle which was the cause of the accident. However, the claimants have preferred a claim petition against the owner and the insurer of the borrowed vehicle. The Court had noted that though the allegations were made about rash and negligent driving against the driver of the offending vehicle, no claim was made against the driver, owner, or insurer of the offending vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the claimants have not established that the deceased driver was in the employment of the owner of the Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined borrowed vehicle, and therefore concluded that the deceased can be said to be the borrower or permissive user of the borrowed vehicle. Having concluded so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the deceased driver cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle (borrowed vehicle) and therefore restricted the compensation to the personal accident cover strictly in terms of the insurance contract wherein the coverage was confined to the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore held that the deceased driver, who had stepped into the shoes of the owner, was entitled to the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
10. Considering the aforesaid well-settled principles, in the facts of the case, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, after the matter was remanded to adjudicate afresh pursuant to the order dated 7 th March, 2012 passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e. in First Appeal no.1279 of 2010, the dispute has been raised with regard to the status of the deceased as to whether he should be considered as the driver of the vehicle or the owner of the Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined vehicle involved in the accident. On close appreciation of the evidence of the mother of the deceased being examined as a witness at Exh.46, the brother of the deceased at Exh.50, the evidence of the registered owner of the vehicle involved at Exh.51, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding that the deceased had entered into the shoes of the owner. The Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion that deceased himself was negligent towards accident and therefore, following the principles laid down in Ningamma (Supra), has held the insurance company not liable to pay any amount of compensation.
11. Having appreciated the findings and reasons of the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has lost sight of the evidence of the investigating officer which has been recorded at Exh.56. Through the said witness, the statement and the further statement of the claimant has been produced at Exhs.57 and 58, wherein the brother of the deceased viz. Bhupatbhai Nanubhai Kumbhar has categorically stated that the rickshaw owned by the deceased had met with an accident. In the further statement of the owner of the vehicle, recorded on 4th January, 2006 by the investigating officer, it Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined has been clarified that the vehicle involved in the accident having registration no.GJ-4 V-8646, has been purchased by the deceased from its registered owner - Dharmendrasinh on installments. The abated summary report has been produced by the said witness at Exh.59, which has been filed against the deceased. The said witness has also produced on record the statement of the registered owner Dharmendrasinh Amarsinh Chudasama (opponent no.1) on 4th January, 2006, who has reported that the vehicle belonged to him and he had rented the vehicle to the deceased for driving. Despite the aforesaid statement being brought on record, the Tribunal has incorrectly noted that police has not recorded the statement of the said witness.
12. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence on record in light of the evidence of owner of the vehicle - opponent no.1, it transpires that the vehicle had continued in the name of opponent no.1 as registered owner in absence of any documentary evidence being brought on record transferring the ownership of the vehicle to the deceased. However, it is also an admitted fact that the deceased was driving the vehicle. Considering the aforesaid evidence on record and the Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma (supra), the deceased had entered into the shoes of the owner and therefore, has rightly been held not entitled for the third party compensation from the insured vehicle.
13. However, considering the terms and conditions of the policy produced on record at Mark-24/1, it is evident from the schedule of the premium paid, the amount of Rs.100/- has been realized as premium towards the personal accident, the risk of the owner-cum-driver of the insured vehicle is covered. Therefore, this Court is inclined to consider the amount of compensation under the personal accident coverage as per the contract of the insurance. The claimants being heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver shall be entitled to sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award dated 9th October, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in MACP no.602 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside by holding the original claimants entitled to seek recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/143/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined towards the personal accident coverage as per the term of the contract of the insured with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.
15. With these observations, the First Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. The R. & P. are directed to be sent back to the concerned Tribunal with the writ of this judgment.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD.../sfs/07.04/fo/28.04 Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 01 23:35:01 IST 2026