Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Chandrakant Manilal Patel on 19 December, 2024
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3185 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3185 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 2 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3185 of 2024
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
CHANDRAKANT MANILAL PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 19/12/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant - insurance company under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') against the judgment and award dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha at Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No. 190 of 2021. Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined
2. Short Facts:
2.1 The short facts of the case are that on 28.03.2021, one Harshil Chandrakant Patel, driver of Baleno car bearing registration No. GJ 08 CC 8285, which was owned by opponent No. 1 father of Harshil met with an accident, wherein he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it. We are not adverting much to the factum of accident. It appears that there is no other vehicle involved in the accident and one of the legal heirs of the deceased has filed claim petition before the tribunal under section 166 of the MV Act.
2.2 After appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, deceased was found sole negligent for causing accident.
Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.20,01,600/- and after considering the issue involved, directed the insurance company to pay personal accident cover of Rs.15,00,000/- as confirmed by the officer of appellant - insurance company in his oral evidence at Exh. 22 and balance amount of Rs.5,01,600/- to be paid by the owner of the vehicle.
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined 2.3 Being aggrieved by the above, insurance company has preferred the present appeal.
3. Submissions of the appellant:
3.1 Mr Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the insurance company would submit that the tribunal has committed a gross error while directing the insurance company to pay compensation under section 166 of the MV Act by the claimant and having found deceased sole negligent for causing accident than as per the settled legal position for his own negligence neither victim of the road accident nor his legal heir would be entitled to any compensation from the insurance company 3.2 Once it is found that deceased himself was negligent for causing accident and in absence of other vehicle involved in the accident, no claim of vehicle in question would be maintainable.Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined 3.3 He would further submit that deceased happens to be the son of original owner of vehicle and obtained MBBS degree and in absence of evidence that he was paid driver, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company. 3.4 He would further submit that tribunal has misunderstood cover given under the policy. He would submit that as per terms and conditions of the policy, claimants are not entitled for any compensation and therefore, now insurance company by preferring an application to bring additional evidence on record would indicate that such cover is for the registered owner of the vehicle and not any other person. So in view of the aforesaid submissions, he would request this Court to allow the appeal.
3.5 Learned advocate Mr Nanavati would rely upon the decision in case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Legal Heirs of Deceased Barot Bharatbhai Arvindbhai reported Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined in 2017 ACJ 1800, whereby he would submit that to get personal accident cover claimant is required to approach different forum under the Consumer Protection Act., Cover which was given under the policy is personal accident cover by charging additional premium over and above regular premium.
4. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. Respondents though served, not remained present. No other and further submissions are made.
5. Point for determination:
5.1 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case any error committed by the tribunal while directing insurance company to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as personal accident cover available under the policy to the claimants?
6. Findings of the Court:
6.1 We have heard learned advocate appearing for the insurance company at length and gone through the impugned Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined judgment, so far as issue of liability of insurance company is concerned, after considering the submissions and reasons assigned by the tribunal, we are in complete agreement with the tribunal on personal accident cover to the claimants. 6.2 It is undisputed fact that deceased was driving the car owned by his father and met with an accident. Of course he was to be blamed for causing an accident. It is also true that when claim petition is filed under section 166 of the MV Act. When deceased himself was found to be negligent for causing accident, ordinarily, the legal heirs would not be entitled to get compensation from owner and insurance company of the vehicle inquestion. This would apply where the tribunal is required to pass any award considering the provisions of Section 166 of the MV Act. In the present case, tribunal has granted only Rs. 15,00,000/- under the head of personal accident cover and not directed to pay compensation so worked out by it as mentioned in para 27 of the impugned judgment.
Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined 6.3 We have gone through the policy of vehicle inquestion, it appears that compulsory personal accident cover premium and additional premium was charged by the insurance company at the rate of Rs. 990/- to grant such additional cover . 6.4 It was so recorded by the tribunal while referring to which was examine before it that such additional premium includes driver cum owner of the vehicle. It was observed in para 30 of the impugned judgment under such personal accident cover for owner and driver having charged by the insurance company, liability of insurance company is fixed to the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in a case of death or total disablement.
6.5 It is so observed by the tribunal that deceased was stepped into shoe of the owner of the vehicle. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the case of Vasuki & Anr. vs Santhi & Anr. reported in 2022 ACJ 244, the facts which were Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined before The Honorable Apex Court in case of Vasuki (Supra) is identical to the facts of present case, it appears from reading the decision that husband of owner of vehicle i.e. father of the children was driving vehicle and met with an accident after referring policy and cover given under it, Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:
"[5] Mr. Abhishek Gola, learned counsel for the insurance company pointed out that in terms of Indian Motor Tariff, the liability of the insurance company is limited in respect of personal accident coverage, therefore, the liability of the insurance company is limited. However, he could not point out any clause from the policy to show that the liability of the insurance company is limited. Mr. Gola, learned counsel also could not point out any clause from the policy that the Indian Motor Tariff would be applicable in respect of the liability of personal accident coverage for the owner and driver. Mr. Gola, learned counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court reported in titled 'Ramkhiladi & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company & Anr., 2020 2 SCC 550' to contend that the personal accident coverage is limited. It is argued that it was a case of motorcycle whereas the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of personal accident coverage but in respect of four-wheeler, the liability is limited to Rs.2,00,000/-.
[6] However, we are unable to agree with the arguments raised. The policy is categorical, indemnifying the personal accident claim of the owner and driver. There is no cap on the amount of compensation payable by the insurance company in the policy. There is no condition in the policy that tariff fixed by the Indian Motor Tariff would be applicable in respect of personal accident claim.Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined [7] The judgment in Ramkhiladi (supra) was a case where there was an accident between two motorcycles. One motorcycle which was other than driven by the deceased, the owner, driver and the insurance company were not impleaded as respondent. Therefore, in terms of the policy, the personal accident benefit was limited to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was produced before the Court.
[8] The arguments that the driver cannot be treated to be third party as against the owner is not disputed but the fact is that the insured having taken a personal accident policy in respect of the owner if she herself was driven or the driver who happens to be her husband, the liability of the insurance company is limited.
[9] In view of the said fact, we find that the order of the High Court is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the MACT. The amount be paid to the appellants within a period of two months."
6.6 Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision and position of law, if we apply to the facts of the present case, there is no error committed by the tribunal while holding insurance company liable to pay Rs.15,00,000/- to the original claimants under the personal accident cover, so far as placing reliance upon case of Barot Bharatbhai Arvindbhai (Supra) we are not in agreement with the view adopted by the learned Single Judge. The Motor Vehicle Act is benevolent act and it is Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined settled legal position that to meet with end of justice, too technical approach is not required to be adopted in favour of road accident victims when claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Our view is also fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Oriental Insurance Company vs. Rajni Devi reported in 2008 (5) SCC 736.
6.7 Lastly, we are required to consider an application filed by the appellant under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby appellant wants to place on record terms and conditions of policy which according to the appellant inadvertently not submitted before the tribunal. We have gone through such application filed at the instance of the insurance company, as such considering the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, no ingredients is made out to allow such application.
6.8 The insurance company could have produce such terms Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined and conditions during the course of trial before the tribunal but it has chosen not to file before the tribunal. It is surprising when insurance company has examined its officer still it has forget to submit copy of terms and conditions and now they want this Court to allow such application. This Court cannot permit the insurance company to fill its lacuna remains on its part theory to produce copy of terms and conditions by allowing present application which is misconceived on facts as well as on law. Even, it was argued before tribunal as recorded in the impugned judgment of tribunal while answering issue of liability that as per submission of learned advocate of insurance company, deceased stepped into shoe of owner of vehicle, then as per decision of Apex Court in a case of Ramkhiladi & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2020 (2) SCC 550 (see para 4.2, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.8) insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay personal accident cover given under the policy. Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3185/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/12/2024 undefined
7. Conclusion:
7.1 The upshoot of the aforesaid discussion observation and findings that we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal as well as the application submitted by the insurance company which requires to be dismissed and both are dismissed with no order as to costs.
7.2 As we have dismissed the appeal and it is reported that insurance company has already deposited the awarded amount as directed by the tribunal. The same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants, in accordance with law.
7.3 In view of disposal of main appeal, both connected Civil Applications are also rejected and disposed of accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) DRASHTI Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Fri Jan 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 03 22:24:10 IST 2025