Gujarat High Court
Manishaben Popatbhai Vaghasiya vs Rajendrasinh Pravinsinh Gohil on 6 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8834/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8834 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
MANISHABEN POPATBHAI VAGHASIYA & ORS.
Versus
RAJENDRASINH PRAVINSINH GOHIL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TULSHI R SAVANI(3070) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 06/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w the provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the impugned order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Surat below Application at Exhibit 36 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.539 of Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:01:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8834/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined 2010 with below mentioned relief/s:-
"12. (A) Be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
(B) Be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06/03/2013 passed upon application at Exhibit 36 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 539 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Surat at Annexure-A by passing appropriate order or by issuing appropriate writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 06/03/2013 passed upon application at Exhibit 36 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 539 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Surat.
(D) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s which deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the father of the petitioners, along with their mother Savitaben, grandmother Champaben, and cousin Hiteshbhai, were traveling to Surat from their native village Shobhavad on 14/07/2010 in a motor car bearing registration No. GJ-5 CK-5334. When they reached Bhogavo Bridge on the Vataman-Dholera Highway near Village Bholad, a tanker bearing registration No. GJ-4 T 7295 came from the opposite direction and collided with the Maruti car driven by their father, Popatbhai. Due to this unfortunate incident, all four occupants of the car died on the spot.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:01:10 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8834/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined 2.1 In respect of the said incident, an FIR being I-C.R. No. 58 of 2010 was lodged with Koth Police Station, Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad, and the petitioners have thus lost their parents in the said accident. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 539 of 2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/- from the respondents.
2.2 The petitioners also filed an application under Section 140 of the Act for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under the principle of no-fault liability, which is still pending and no order has been passed thereon. The respondent No. 4, the owner of the Maruti car, filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the driver of the tanker.
2.3 The respondent No. 5 also filed its written statement raising various defenses, including that deceased Popatbhai cannot be considered a third party and is therefore not covered under the insurance policy, though it is an admitted fact that the policy was a package/comprehensive policy and was valid at the time of the accident. The respondent No. 5 filed an application dated 20/02/2013 contending that the claim petition suffers from misjoinder of parties and that the deceased Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:01:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8834/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined driver is not a third party and is not covered under the policy, and therefore sought dismissal of the case against it with costs. The said application was made without proper application of mind and without verifying the provisions of the insurance policy, and therefore they filed a detailed reply on 06/03/2013 along with written submissions supported by judgments of the this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2.4 Without considering the written statement, reply, submissions, and the judgments cited, the learned District Judge passed the impugned order on the very same day. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 06/03/2013 passed below exh.36 in MACP No. 539 of 2010, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
3. Heard Mr. Tulshi R. Savani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rathin P. Raval, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
4. Mr. Savani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioners filed a claim petition against the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surat being M.A.C.P. No.539 of 2010. He has submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No. 5, the insurance company, filed an application below Exhibit 36 in M.A.C.P. No.539 of 2010, which was allowed Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:01:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8834/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined by the learned Principal District Judge, Surat, thereby deleting respondent No. 5 from the proceedings.
4.1 He further submits that it is now well settled that, at the interim stage, the Tribunal cannot pass an order deleting the insurance company without leading evidence or producing any material on record. He has submitted that after full-fledged trial and only after leading evidence and hearing the parties, at the stage of the final order, the Tribunal can pass an order exonerating the insurance company. He has submitted that in the present case, the learned Tribunal has committed an error by passing such an order at an interim stage without giving the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal below Exhibit 36 in M.A.C.P. No.539 of 2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Over and above the contentions raised in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the impugned order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.2 Mr. Savani, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied and referred the decision of this court in case of Vanitaben Vasantbhai Munjal vs. Amarshibhai Premjibhai Munjat reported in 2023 (2) GLR 903. He has submitted, the court while dealing with the similar set of facts, has referred the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:01:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8834/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined Anita Sharma and other vs. New Assurance Company Limited reported in 2021 ACJ 17 and submits that present petition may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Rathin Raval, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, has vehemently opposed the present petition and contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the fact that there was a breach of the policy conditions and that the same was not covered under the policy, has rightly passed the impugned order. He further submitted that the Tribunal, having duly considered the provisions of the Contract Act as well as the terms stipulated in the policy, has committed no error, and therefore no interference is called for.
5.1 Mr.Raval, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the settled legal principle and therefore, the same requires to be confirmed and present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have perused the relevant material and the documents placed on record. I have also gone through the impugned order passed by the tribunal.
7. It appears from the record that the issues involved in the present petition are whether the Tribunal was Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:01:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8834/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined justified in passing the impugned order at the interim stage without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence regarding the involvement of the vehicle, and whether there was any breach of the terms stipulated in the policy.
8. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Court in the decision in case of Vanitaben Vasantbhai (supra) in paragraph No.20, the present petition requires consideration. The said paragraph No.20 of the said decision reads as under:-
"20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the question raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal with regard to its liability requires to be adjudicated upon in the course of adjudication of the main claim petition. It requires to be decided on merits on the basis of defence which the claimants may raise. The entire issue would be the matter of evidence and thereby, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal should not have decided at the interim stage. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. I answer the question accordingly."
9. In the above-cited decision, this Court has quashed and set aside the interim order passed by the Tribunal. A similar issue is involved in the present petition. In the present case, the Tribunal has passed an interim order exonerating the insurance company; therefore, the present petition requires consideration. The Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned order at the interim stage. The final decision is yet to be rendered, and prior to such decision, the Tribunal has exonerated Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:01:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8834/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined the insurance company, which is neither just nor proper. In my view, the decision taken by the Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the present petition requires consideration.
10. Accordingly the present petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Surat in MACP No.539 of 2010 below Exh. 36 is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. It is open to all the concerned parties to raise all legal contentions available to them before the Tribunal at the time of final hearing of the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.539 of 2010. After considering the submissions and affording an opportunity to all concerned, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surat, may, at the stage of final decision, determine whether the insurance company is liable to be exonerated or to pay the compensation. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Direct service permitted.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:01:10 IST 2026