Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Dhaduk vs Chhagan Ramjibhai Dolariya on 6 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4330/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4330 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI DHADUK
Versus
CHHAGAN RAMJIBHAI DOLARIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 8
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,6
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 06/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), at Rajkot, in M.A.C.P. No. 1102 of 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal had dismissed the Claim Petition preferred by the original claimant/appellant herein.
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:30 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4330/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined appeal, as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
i. On 16.03.2008, the original claimant/appellant herein - Mr. Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Dhaduk, was working as a driver on a truck bearing registration No.GJ-8U-1648. At about 06:00 pm., the claimant/appellant herein was driving the said vehicle at very moderate speed and by observing traffic rules. When he reached near the place of the accident, in the meantime, original opponent No.3/respondent No.3 herein came by driving one truck bearing registration No.GJ-10-W-6237 and original opponent No.6/respondent No.6 herein came by driving one Eicher tempo bearing registration No.GJ-17-X-4922 in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed with the truck driven by the original claimant/appellant herein, thereby causing the accident. As a result of the said vehicular accident, the original claimant/appellant herein sustained grievous injuries to his body.
ii. It is the case of the original claimant/appellant herein before the learned Tribunal that at the time of the vehicular accident, the claimant was aged about 41 years and he was working as a driver of heavy vehicle, thereby earning Rs.3,000/- per month as salary, plus Rs.150/- per day as bhatha.Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:30 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4330/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined Therefore, the Original Claimant/appellant herein preferred the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/-.
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petition, original opponent Nos. 1, 4, 6 & 7/respondent nos. 1, 4, 6 & 7 herein had chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal, while the original opponent No.3/respondent No.3 herein
- driver of truck bearing registration No.GJ-10-W- 6237 and the Insurance Companies, viz., original opponent No.2/respondent No.2 herein - Insurer of the truck in which the claimant was travelling, original opponent No.5/respondent No.5 herein - Insurer of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-10- W-6237, and original opponent No.8/respondent No.8 herein - Insurer of Eicher tempo bearing registration No.GJ-17-X-4922, filed their respective written statements, thereby denying the averments made in the Claim Petition, and in brief, prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues, for determination:-
i. Whether the claimant proves that he sustained injuries due to rash and Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:30 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4330/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined negligent driving of the driver/s of the vehicle/vehicles involved in the accident ?
ii. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation If yes, what and from whom ?
iii. What order and award ?
v. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record and the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the Claim Petition on the ground that the claimant/appellant herein himself was negligent for causing the accident and being the owner of the vehicle, he cannot claim compensation from its own insurer.
vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimant/appellant herein has preferred the captioned appeal on the ground of negligence as well as quantum.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. At the outset, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant/appellant herein vehemently submitted that the Claim of the appellant herein ought not to have been rejected on the ground that the Claimant/appellant himself was negligent in causing the accident and he was of the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, as such, he cannot claim Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:30 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4330/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined compensation from the original opponents/respondents herein. He contended that the case of the claimant/appellant herein is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the full bench of this High Court in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/o Late Laxmanbhai Ramsinghbhai Thakore (Koli) vs Kandla Dock Labour Board reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243219. He submitted that the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has charged the premium of Rs.100/- to cover the risk of the owner cum driver of the vehicle, as such, contended that the respondent No.2- Insurance Company has the contractual liability to indemnify the risk of the claimant/appellant herein, however, the learned Tribunal had committed manifest error in dismissing the Claim of the claimant/appellant herein. He further submitted that the captioned appeal may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal concerned to decide the same afresh.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the full bench of this High Court in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) (supra), the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal concerned.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it appears that the learned Tribunal had dismissed the Claim Petition preferred by the original claimant/appellant herein on the ground that the claimant/appellant herein himself was negligent for causing the accident and secondly, being the owner of the vehicle, he cannot claim compensation from its own insurer. The issue Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:30 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4330/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined involved in the Claim Petition is no more res integra, as the same has been dealt in the case ofValiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) (supra), wherein the full bench of this High Court at para 13 & 15 had 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 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 Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:30 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4330/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined 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.
............................................................... ............................................................... ....................
15. In our opinion, by accepting additional premium, the Insurance Company indemnifies 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 Bench in the case of Saberabibi Hisammiya Umarvmiya & Anr (supra) lays down the correct law. Reference is thus, answered accordingly."
7. Thus, in view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, the captioned appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal concerned to decide the issue of negligence as well as quantum afresh. The learned Tribunal concerned is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, as far a possible within a period of six months from today. Learned advocate for the respective parties are directed to co-operate with learned Tribunal for earlier disposal of the matter.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:30 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4330/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 undefined
8. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Mon Mar 09 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 22:01:30 IST 2026