Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Tanjila Khatoon on 16 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/24/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
TANJILA KHATOON & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Rajkot District at Jepur in MACP No.174 of 2018.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent No.6 and 7.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2018, the deceased, Md. Safruddin Tahir Saikh, was driving a truck bearing registration No. GJ-03-AT-4311 from Mumbai to Jetpur. Near the signboard of village Kural on the Padra-Jambusar Road, the said truck collided with an oncoming truck bearing registration No. GJ-03-BT-2459. As per the FIR, the accident Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:20:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/24/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined occurred as the deceased was driving his truck on the wrong side and dashed against the oncoming truck. The deceased sustained serious injuries in the accident and succumbed to the said injuries during treatment at the hospital.
4. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in appreciating the evidence produced on record and come to the conclusion which is against the settled principle of law. Learned tribunal has no properly considered written statement and admission of the claimant that the deceased driver of the truck himself was negligent and in case of self negligence petition is not maintainable and Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act and even the learned Tribunal has awarded in exorbitant high compensation which is required to be slash down. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed.
5. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents, opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record. It was contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, no interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has duly appreciated the evidence on record, Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:20:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/24/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined including the evidence of the claimant at Exhibit 22, the FIR at Exhibit 25, the panchnama of the scene of offence at Exhibit 26, the driving licence of the deceased at Exhibit 28, the final report at Exhibit 42, and the insurance policy of the truck at Exhibit
38. The coverage under the insurance policy is not in dispute, and the involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute.
7. So far as the aspect of negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal has decided the issue on the ground that the deceased himself was negligent. As regards liability, the learned Tribunal has concluded that opponent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and the driver of the offending vehicle has been exonerated. The insurance company had raised a contention before the Tribunal that the deceased was not a paid driver; however, it failed to prove the said defence and did not rebut the evidence adduced by the claimant.
8. From the record it appears that the owner of the truck bearing registration No. GJ-03-AT-4311, in his written statement, stated that the deceased was working as a driver and was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The said fact was not denied by the insurance company. The insurance policy produced at Exhibit 30 shows that an additional premium of Rs.50/&Rs.200/- was paid to the insurance company. Therefore, in light of the decision in Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakor (Koli) v. Kandla Dock Labour Board, wherein the Court held that when an insurance policy covers legal liability of a paid driver upon receipt of additional premium, the insurer is liable to pay Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:20:38 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/24/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of or injury to the driver arising out of an accident, even if the accident occurred solely due to the driver's own negligence, the insurer is liable.
9. The Hon'ble High Court has held in paragraph 13 as under:
"13. Thus, when the owner of a vehicle pays additional premium and same is accepted by the insurance company, liability of the insurance company gets extended under the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 147 of the Act clearly TRONA and conductor under the insurance policy, which is a prescribes for statutory liability to cover risk of paid driver matter of contract. On payment of such additional premium by the owner, the liability of the owner shifts upon the insurance company. Thus, the risk of paid driver and conduction would be covered under the insurance policy. Only when the additional premium is not paid, and in such cases, compensation would be computed as prescribed under the Act which is limited to the extent provided under provisions of the Act. However, when owner paid driver and conductor to the insurance company, as pays additional premium to cover the legal liability of his such, the insurance company is enlarging the scope for unlimited liability for payment of compensation, when additional premium is accepted. The liability of the insurance company gets extended and it has no right to raise issue of self-negligence or otherwise of such class of the driver of the insure vehicle. By accepting additional premium as per IMT 28, the insurance company expressed its willingness to extend its liability under the clause of legal liability to the paid driver and conductor as envisaged under Section 147 of the Act. Thus, in our opinion insurance company has no legal right to avoid its legal liability under the indemnity clause arising from the contract of insurance towards the insured-owner of such classes of vehicles."Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:20:38 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/24/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2026 undefined
10. On an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in saddling the insurance company with the liability, as the additional premium was duly received. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The application stands dismissed accordingly.
11. If any amount is lying deposited before this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings, if any, to the learned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Jan 16 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 20 22:20:38 IST 2026