Gujarat High Court
Dharmishthaba Yogendrasinh Zala vs Jayshreeba Bharatsinh Zala on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1977 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHARMISHTHABA YOGENDRASINH ZALA & ORS.
Versus
JAYSHREEBA BHARATSINH ZALA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 17/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Surendranagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 279 of 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,26,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, as compensation.
Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined
2. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the captioned appeal are summarized as under :-
i. On 10.11.2007, at about 03:00 p.m., the deceased-Yogendrasinh was proceeding from Amrapur (Halvad) to Bangalore while driving a truck bearing Registration No. GJ-1-AU-3212. When he reached about 3 kilometers away from Devla on the Satana-Devla Road, a cow suddenly came onto the road and in an attempt to avoid hitting the animal, he lost control over the steering of the truck and collided with a neem tree. As a result of the said accident, Yogendrasinh sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same.
ii. The notices/summons of the Claim Petition were duly served upon the opponents. The opponent no.1 chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal, however, the Opponent No.2- Insurance Company appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed Written-Statement at Exh.18, thereby, denying the averments made in the claim petition in toto.
iii. Having considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and having considered the submissions of the learned Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,26,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, as compensation.
iv. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award, the appellant- Insurance Company preferred the present appeal challenging impugned Judgment and award.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted that the claim petition came to be filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the "Act"). However, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from satisfying the award on the ground that the claimant/appellant herein himself negligent for causing the accident. It is submitted that under Section 163(A) of the Act, the issue of negligence is irrelevant. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the claimant/appellant herein placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of United Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sunil Kumar & Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No.9694 of 2013 dated 24.11.2017. Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, it submitted that now well settled that the issue of negligence is wholly irrelevant in the case where the claim petition came to be preferred under Section 163(A) of the Act.
5. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is not proved on record that the vehicle was duly insured. It is submitted that the claimant/appellant herein has proved on record the receipts for payment of premium at Mark 7/7. It is submitted that the risk of the deceased herein was duly covered. It is submitted that at the time of accident, the claimant/appellant herein was the paid driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the full bench of this Court in case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/o. Late Laxmanbhai Ramsingbhai Thakore (Koli) Vs. Kandla Dock Labour Board reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC-243219, the Insurance Company ought to have been held liable to satisfy the award.
6. It is submitted that the claim petition came to be filed under Section 163(A) of the Act. After filing of the claim petition, the Act came to be amended and Section 164 has been inserted. It is submitted that under Section 164 of the Act, the claimant/appellant herein are entitled to get the lumpsum compensation of Rs.5 lacs on account of death of Yogendrasinh Nirubha Jhala. It is submitted that Section 164 Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined of the Act can be made applicable retrospectively. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the claimant/appellant herein relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983. Having placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment, he submitted that the captioned appeal is liable to be allowed.
7. Per contra, Ms.Masumi Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.3-Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the Act came to be amended subsequently after the accident. Therefore, the provisions of Section 164 of the Act cannot be made applicable retrospectively. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the captioned appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the claim petition came to be filed by the legal representatives of deceased- Yogendrasinh, who was paid driver of the truck bearing Registration No.GJ-1-AU-3212 under Section 163(A) of the Act. Under Section 163 of the Act, the issue of negligence has become irrelevant. Now, the legal position is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid the ratio as under:-
Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined
"9. ................ in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim."
9. Now, coming to the case on hand, the Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that the appellants cannot claim the compensation from the Insurance Company, as the deceased was himself negligent for causing the accident. The finding returned by the learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunilkumar (supra).
10. The claim petition came to be filed under Section 163 of the Act. During the sustenance of the claim petition, Section 164 of the Act was amended which is reproduced herein under:-
"Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc. -- (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 or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be."Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined
11. A perusal of Section 164 empowers the learned Tribunal / Court to award a lumpsum amount of Rs.5 lacs in case of death. Now, the question as to whether the provisions of Section 164 of the Act can made applicable retrospectively or not, is no more res-integra and the same as been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Urmila Halder (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"4. The short point for consideration before this Court is whether the amendment in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect by a Gazette Notification on 22nd May, 2018, would relate to an accident which had occurred prior to the said date.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has rightly taken a view that it is merely a procedural amendment which has to be given retrospective effect and it is nothing substantive so as to affect the merits of the issue.
9. Having considered the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. With regard to the judgments of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, having gone through the same we find that they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus, the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case."
12. In view of ratio of Urmila Halder (supra), the claimants/appellants herein is entitled to get a lumpsum Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined compensation of Rs.5 lacs. Now, the question arises as to whether the liability to satisfy the award can be fastened upon the Insurance Company. A perusal of the record transpires that the appellant/claimants herein have placed the receipts of premium at Mark 7/7. A perusal of the receipts transpires that the Insurance Company has charged the premium of Rs.15,918/-.
13. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased-Yogendrasinh was the paid driver. The Insurance Company has charged the additional premium to cover the risk of the driver. The issue as to whether the Insurance Company can be held liable, if the Insurance Company has accepted the additional premium on account of took over the risk of paid driver to satisfy the award. The issue is no more res-integra and the same has been settled by full bench of this High Court in case of Valiben, wherein, in Paragraph Nos.13 & 15, the full bench of this High Court has observed as under:-
""13. Thus, when the owner of a vehicle pay 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 prescribes for statutory liability to cover risk of paid Driver and Conductor under the Insurance Policy, which is a 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 Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined Conductor would be covered under the Insurance Policy. Only when the additional premium is not paid, liability would be as per the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 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 pays additional premium to cover the legal liability of his paid driver and conductor to the Insurance Company, as 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 the such class of the driver of the Insured vehicle. By accepting additional premium as per the 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.
14. .......
15. In our opinion, by accepting additional premium, the Insurance Company indemnies the owners for paid Driver and / or Conductor and risk of Driver / Conductor is covered under it. Upon death or injury caused to the paid Driver and / or Conductor, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy such claim irrespective of the self negligence. Thus, the observations made by the Division Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined Bench in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya & Anr (supra) lays down the correct law. Reference is thus, answered accordingly."
14. Thus, in view of ratio laid down full bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Valiben, I am of the considered view that the risk of the deceased driver was duly covered and the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award.
15. In view of above discussion, the appellants/claimants herein shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.5 lacs. The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.4,26,500/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. Therefore, the appellants/claimants herein shall be entitled for an additional amount of compensation of Rs.73,500/- (Rs.5,00,000 - Rs.4,26,500). Therefore, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the same rate of interest on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
16. In view of the above discussions, the captioned appeal stands allowed partly and judgment and award is modified to that extent. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount along with interest, with the concerned learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. Upon depositing the said amount of compensation, learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount of Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1977/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026 undefined compensation along with interest to the original claimant/s after due verification.
17. If any amount of compensation, or any statutory amount, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned, in accordance with the applicable Rules. Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) GIRISH Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:03:36 IST 2026