Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Legal Heirs Of Decd. Hitesh Pokiya on 27 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 613 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. HITESH POKIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,4,5
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 27/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of
1988”) at the instance of the original opponent no.3-National
Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as “Insurance
Company”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award dated 17.12.2014 (hereinafter to be referred as
“judgment and award”) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Page 1 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
Tribunal (Auxi.)& Additional District Judge, Junagadh, in Claim Case
No.348 of 2004.
[1.1] By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal
has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original
claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding them entitled
to seek recovery of sum of Rs.6,73,000/- from the original opponent
nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally, with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual
realization with proportionate costs. Hence, the present appeal.
[2.] Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the
submissions made by learned advocate on record for the appellant-
Insurance Company, this Court, vide order dated 08.12.2015, had
admitted the appeal. In the Civil Application, this Court, by way of ad-
interim relief, had stayed the impugned judgment and award on
condition of deposit of the entire award amount before the concerned
Tribunal. On the next date of hearing, considering the submissions
made by learned advocate for the appellant, about deposit of the
entire award amount with interest and costs, this Court had directed
disbursement of 30% of the deposited award amount in favour of the
original claimants and 70% was directed to be invested, till the final
disposal of the appeal.
Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined [3.] The record suggests that the respondents have been duly
served with the notice of admission of appeal; however, pending the
appeal, the respondent nos.2,4 and 5 have been deleted from the
array of the parties. Learned advocate Mr. Amar D. Mithani has
entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos.1.1 and 1.2-original
claimants and learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi has entered
appearance on behalf of respondent no.3-owner of the vehicle.
[4.] With the able assistance of learned advocates on record
for the respective parties, the appeal is heard finally and decided by
this judgment.
[5.] Mr. Rushang D. Mehta learned advocate has appeared
virtually on behalf of Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the
appellant-Insurance Company and has submitted that the appeal is
filed mainly on the ground of the liability of the Insurance Company
being wrongly fixed to pay the amount of compensation to the
claimants. Referring to the written statement (Exh.24) filed by the
opponent no.3-Insurance Company, he submitted that specific
defense that the driver of their insured vehicle was not holding any
valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Learned
advocate has placed reliance upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.
Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined
Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi and Ors. reported in 2025 (3) SCC 95, and has
submitted that the issue of non holding of valid and effective driving
licence without any separate endorsement to drive the transport
vehicle, is no more res integra.
[5.1] Assailing the findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal on the issue of liability, learned advocate has pointed out
that though the driving licence was produced at Exh.86, it was issued
only on 07.11.2003 whereas the accident has taken place on
01.11.2003. On bare appreciation of the contents of the aforesaid
driving licence, it is evident that, for non-transport vehicle, the validity
period was indicated from 25.11.2009 to 24.11.2014, and for transport
vehicle, the validity period was indicated from 25.11.2009 to
24.11.2012. The driving licence produced on record at Exh.86,
therefore clearly suggests that the said driving licence was issued for
LMV (non-transport category vehicle), valid between the period from
14.10.2003 to 24.11.2014. Considering these undisputed facts, it has
been established on record that at the time of the accident, on
01.11.2003, the driver of their insured was not holding any license to
drive a transport vehicle and the same contributed to the accident.
With such circumstances being emerged on record, the Insurance
Company ought to have been exonerated from its liability to pay the
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
amount of compensation.
[5.2] On the quantum of compensation, the learned advocate
has submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in applying the
deduction of 1/3rd instead of 50%, ignoring the fact that the
deceased was aged 19 years at the time of the accident, and was
unmarried. The claimants being the parents of the deceased, in view
of the well settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate deduction to be
applied, would be 50% towards the personal and living expenses of
the deceased.
[5.3] By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has
urged this Court to allow the appeal and to quash and set aside the
impugned judgment and award, by exonerating the appellant-
Insurance Company from its liability to pay any amount of
compensation, or alternatively, to modify the impugned judgment and
award by appropriately reducing the quantum of compensation.
[6.] Learned advocate Mr. Aditya Mistry has appeared for Mr.
Amar D. Mithani, learned advocate on record for respondent nos.1.1
and 1.2-original claimants. He has vehemently objected to the
Page 5 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate on record for the
appellant- Insurance Company.
[6.1] It was submitted that the holding of valid and effective
license at the most is the interse dispute between the insurer and
insured for which the claimants being stranger to the contract may not
suffer. The attention of this Court was invited to the relevant
documents produced on record at Exh. 74, 78, 84, 85 and 86, to show
that the driver of the dumper was a trained driver. It was therefore
submitted that only for an intergennum period, during the time of
accident the driver of the offending vehicle was lacking necessary
renewal of the authority to drive a transport vehicle, however, the
same itself is not sufficient to conclude that mere absence of the
driving license has led to occurrence of accident and the insurance
company has proved the owner having failed to verify the same, there
is breach of terms and conditions of policy..
[6.2] The attention of this Court was invited to the relevant
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, and has
submitted that the insurance company was not required to prove the
defense raised about non holding of any license but were also under
obligation to establish that the same has led to breach of terms and
Page 6 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
conditions of policy and was root cause of accident. It was further
submitted that in absence of any officer from the RTO being
examined as witness or any independent evidence being led in this
regard, the insurance company has miserably failed to prove their
defense beyond doubt. According to the learned advocate, applying
the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decision, the appeal is required to be dismissed.
[6.3] The reliance was placed on a decision of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Nirmalaben Ghanshyambhai Bhatiya 2024 (0) AIJEL- HC 249742
to contend that the insurance company cannot be absolved from its
liability to pay compensation where it fails to prove breach of policy
conditions. Mere production of RTO extract itself is not sufficient as it
does not establish that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge that
the driver lacked a valid license. A similar view has also been
expressed in the case of Raval Rameshbhai Somabhai vs.
Dipeshkumar Babubhai Patel, reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC
249399.
[6.4] Alternatively, learned advocate has submitted that
appropriate orders of pay and recovery may be passed to protect the
interest of the claimants who are otherwise victims of accident
Page 7 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
awaiting compensation. The attention of this Court was invited to the
‘avoidance clause’ appearing in the policy. The reliance was placed on
the decision of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Leelaben Maheshbhai Prajapati & Ors., First Appeal no. 1608 of
2015 with cross objections no. 8 of 2016, Common Oral Judgement
dated 24.03.2026.
[6.5] On the quantum of compensation, the learned advocate
has submitted that, considering the fact that the deceased was
survived by both the parents, the Tribunal has rightly considered 1/3rd
deduction, in the facts of the case. Learned advocate has further
urged this Court to consider the settled principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in landmark decision in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, to award just and fair amount of compensation. It
was submitted that, though no separate appeal or cross-objection has
been preferred by the claimants; since, the issue of quantum of
compensation has been raised by the appellant-Insurance Company in
the present appeal, this Court can always invoke the powers conferred
under Order XLIII Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to do
complete justice in order to meet with the core object of awarding
just and proper compensation.
Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined [6.6] According to the learned advocate, the claimants, who are
the parents of the deceased, shall be entitled to a filial consortium of
Rs.48,400/- each. The Tribunal has further lost sight of the amount of
compensation under the head of loss of estate, to be considered in
fatal accident cases. Learned advocate has, therefore, prayed to re-
consider the amount of compensation under the head of loss of estate
as well as towards funeral expenses, which is otherwise confined to
Rs.5,000/-.
[6.7] By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal, and to consider the
enhancement of amount of compensation under the aforesaid heads
in case, if the Court is accepting the submissions made by learned
advocate on the issue of quantum of compensation.
[7.] Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appearing for the
respondent no.3-owner of the vehicle, has mainly relied upon the
findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, and has objected to the
submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance
Company. He has supported the arguments made by learned
advocates for the original claimants and, has urged this Court to
dismiss the appeal.
Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined [8.] I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and carefully considered their arguments in light of the findings and
reasons assigned by the Tribunal. I have appreciated the evidence on
record. The short question, which arises for consideration of this Court
in the present appeal is, as to whether the Tribunal committed any
error in deciding the claim petition preferred under Section 166 of the
Act of 1988, in the facts of the case and the evidence on record?
[9.] Before adverting to the merits of the appeal, it would be
appropriate to note that the foundational facts, as regards the
occurrence of the accident, the injury sustained by the deceased in the
vehicular accident and the issue of negligence, as decided by the
Tribunal, have attained finality, in absence of any challenge being
made by either of the parties.
[10.] On merits, at the outset, it would be appropriate to
consider the issue of the liability raised by the appellant-Insurance
Company. I have carefully considered the findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal, and have also perused the relevant
documents on record, more particularly, the driving licence of the
driver of the offending vehicle produced on record at Exh.86. As
rightly noted by the Tribunal, it is evident that the driving licence was
Page 10 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
issued by the licensing authority of the RTO Office, Surat, in favour of
the driver of the offending vehicle on 10.07.2012.
[10.1] The contents of the smart card driving licence (Exh. 86)
indicate that the licence was issued in favour of the said driver for
LMV i.e. for non-transport vehicle, was valid from 14.10.2003 to
24.11.2014. The date of issuance of such driving licence indicated is
14.10.2003. It further transpires that the licence to drive a transport
vehicle, has also been subsequently availed, which was issued on the
09.12.2009.
[11.] Having noted the aforesaid validity period of the driving
licence, if the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant
insurance company and the for the claimants is to be tested on
touchstone of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rambha Devi (supra), it is required to be ascertain as to whether
mere non holding of HGV license goes to the root cause of the
accident?. In the case of Rambha Devi (supra), the pivotal legal issue
arose before the Bench of Five Judges to decide the reference as to
whether under the existing legal framework of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, a person holding
a license for a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class, can drive a ‘Transport
Page 11 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
Vehicle’ without a specific endorsement, provided the ‘Gross Vehicle
Weight’ of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 kgs?
[11.1] The reference was answered by the Larger Bench of the
Supreme Court, holding that the term “light motor vehicle” inter alia
means a “transport vehicle”. The use of the word “means” is crucial,
which suggests specifics. Interpreting the term “mean”, the Larger
Bench held that the legislatures did not wish to maintain a distinction
between the two classes of vehicles, and has, therefore, found it
explicit by observing that the specific definition did not leave any
room for ambiguity. The Court did not take into consideration the
argument that a driving licence issued for a particular class is limited,
and the intention of the legislature was to exclude the transport
vehicles falling within the LMV class. Accordingly, it was held that the
correct way to view the legal implication would be that the “transport
vehicles” mentioned in Section 10 would cover only those vehicles
whose gross vehicle weight was above 7,500 kgs. It was, therefore,
held that the driver of a light motor vehicle is not per se disentitled to
acquire a licence for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ class, for driving vehicles
above the weight of 7,500 kgs or those classes which do not fall in the
definition of Light Motor Vehicle under Section 2(21). Thus, following
the aforesaid ratio and the facts of that case, the argument of the
Page 12 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company deserves
consideration. It is required to be noted that the RC book of the
offending vehicle has been produced on record at EXh. 75, wherein
the class of vehicle is described as HGV Dumper means it is classified
as Heavy Goods Vehicle. Further, it reveals that the gross vehicle
weight of the said vehicle at the time of registration is mentioned as
15660 kgs. Whereas the unladen weight indicated is 5960 kgs. Bearing
in mind the aforesaid features of the vehicle, if one looks at relevant
provisions of the Act, 1988, section 2(16) ” Heavy Goods Vehicle ” has
been defined as any goods carriage the gross weight of which, or a
tractor or a road roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds
12,000 kilograms. Having noted the aforesaid provisions, in my view
though the driver of the offending vehicle was holding LMV license
however, a separate endorsement confirming license to drive
Transport vehicle like dumper was required. Admittedly, on the
license to drive heavy goods vehicles exceeding 12,000 kgs., as in the
case of offending vehicle, there was no such license in existence as on
the date of the accident. At the same time, on appreciation of the
documents produced on record at Exhs. 74, 78, 84, 85 and 86, as relied
upon by learned advocates for the claimants, the following particulars
emerges as regards validity period and the authorisation to drive a
particular class of vehicle:
Page 13 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
Sr. Exh. Particulars Validity
No.
1. 46 Hiteshbhai Pokiya (Claimant Driving NA
Licence for MC-Motorcycle)
2. 74 Deshle Shantaram Pandurang (Res. 07.11.2003 to
No. 2 Licence for LMV, MGV, HGV) 06.11.2008
3. 78 Deshle Shantaram Pandurang (Res.
No. 2 Licence for HMV) issued on dtd. 14.10.1983 to
12.07.2003
4. 84 Deshle Shantaram Pandurang (Res.
No. 2 Licence for LMV) 14.10.2003 to
24.11.2014
5. 85 Deshle Shantaram Pandurang (Res. 25.11.2009 to
No. 2 Licence for Non-Transport 24.11.2014
Vehicle &
25.11.2009 to
Transport Vehicle 24.11.2012
6. 86 Deshle Shantaram Pandurang (Res.
No. 2 Licence for LMV, MGV, HGV) 07.11.2003 to
Issued on dated: 06.11.2006
[11.2] Thus, it can be noted that the driver was issued a license
to drive an HMV (Heavy Motor Vehicle) vehicle for the first time in
1983 with a validity period from 15.10.1983 to 12.07.2003 for a period
of 30 years. With the gap of three months, the said driver had secured
an LMV license with a validity period from 14.10.2003 to 24.11.2003.
As against that, the Non Transport vehicle license was secured from
25.11.2009 to 24.11.2014 and for Transport vehicles between
25.11.2009 to 24.11.2012. The smart card license suggests a valid
license for LMV, MGV and HGV from 07.11.2003 to 06.11.2006.
Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined
Whereas the accident had taken place on 01.11.2003. It is evident
therefore that the driver of the dumper was only holding an LMV
license and was not holding any license to drive a Transport vehicle
like a dumper. With such evidence on record, in my opinion the
insurance company has proved his defense of absence of valid and
effective driving license by the driver of the offending vehicle at the
time of accident.
[11.3] However, as rightly submitted by learned advocate for the
claimants the subliminal question which arises is as to whether the
appellant insurance company has discharged its burden to prove that
the owner of the vehicle as cautiously permitted the driver of the
dumper to use the vehicle even knowingly that he was not holding
valid and effective driving license to drive heavy goods vehicle like
dumper. In order to inquire into aforesaid aspects, appropriate would
be to look into relevant observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Swaran Singh (supra). On the question related, the
Court held as under :
“WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN GRANTED LICENCE FOR ONE TYPE
OF VEHICLE BUT AT THE RELEVANT TIME HE WAS DRIVING
ANOTHER TYPE OF VEHICLE :
Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to
drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, aPage 15 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder there
to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description.
Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an
effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to
drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to
prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles
mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of
vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or
more of them are (a) Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with
gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport
vehicle, (f) road roller and (g) motor vehicle of other specified
description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines
various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types
mentioned in sub- sectionh (2) of Section 10. They are `goods
carriage’, `heavy-goods vehicle’, `heavy passenger motor-vehicle’,
`invalid carriage’, `light motor-vehicle’, `maxi-cab’,`medium goods
vehicle’, `medium passenger motor-vehicle’, `motor-cab’,
`motorcycle’, `omnibus’, `private service vehicle’, `semi-trailer’,
`tourist vehicle’, `tractor’, `trailer’, and `transport vehicle’. In claims
for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with
regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration
before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for
`motorcycle without gear’, for which he has no licence. Cases may
also arise where a holder of driving licence for `light motor vehicle’
is found to be driving a `maxi-cab’, `motor-cab’ or `omnibus’ for
which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the
tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver
possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another
type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on
facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of somePage 16 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and
similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing
requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its
liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving
licence.
We have construed and determined the scope of sub-clause (ii) of
sub- section(2) of section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence
conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement
about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the
direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of
inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such
minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing
conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the
benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.
On all pleas of breach of licensing conditions taken by the insurer, it
would be open to the tribunal to adjudicate the claim and decide
inter se liability of insurer and insured; although where such
adjudication is likely to entail undue delay in decision of the claim of
the victim, the tribunal in its discretion may relegate the insurer to
seek its remedy of reimbursement from the insured in the civil
court.”
[11.4] Considering the aforesaid principles, if one looks at the
particulars of license issued to the driver, as evident from Exh. 78, he
was found competent to drive HMV i.e. heavy motor vehicle in 1983
and such license was in force for period of 30 years and had expired
12.07.2003 which was approximately four months before the accident
dated 01.11.2003. Subsequently, he had secured a license for
Page 17 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
transport vehicles on 07.11.2003 as evident from the smart card at
Exh. 86. Which is 6 days after the accident. The fact remains that driver
had wide experience to drive heavy motor vehicle and therefore in
absence of any nexus established by the appellant insurance company
to remotely suggest that nin holding of license has led to accident,
this Court finds no good reason to exonerate insurance company from
its liability to indemnify the insurer as well as to compensate the
victims of the accident. Further, there is no evidence on record to
suggest that the owner had failed to inquire into the holding of valid
and effective license by the driver at the time of accident before
handing over the vehicle. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal on
grounds of the liability is meritless and fails.
[12.] This brings me to the issue of the quantum of
compensation. The core contention, which has been raised by the
learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company, is that the
Tribunal committed a grave error in applying 1/3rd deduction instead
of one-half in the particular facts of the case. I have carefully
considered the well settled principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). As rightly submitted by
learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, from paragraph 30 onwards, has laid down the
Page 18 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
guidelines as regards the deduction to be made towards personal and
living expenses on the basis of units. Considering the fact that the
deceased was unmarried and the claimants are the parents, as held by
the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, in absence of any
exceptional circumstances being brought on record, it would be
appropriate to apply 50% deduction towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased. In absence of any challenge being made to
the income of the deceased being fixed as Rs.3,000/-, considering the
settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), and the age of the deceased being determined
as 19 years, the addition of 40% rise is required to be applied in the
facts of the case. Thus, the prospective income of the deceased is,
therefore, determined as Rs. 4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + 40%). Considering
the fact that the deceased was survived by the parents and was
unmarried, applying 50% deduction towards personal and living
expenses, the loss of income suffered by the claimants, is determined
as Rs. 2,100/-per month (Rs. 4,200 x 50%). The Tribunal has rightly
applied a multiplier of 18, considering the age of the deceased was in
the age group of 15 to 20. Considering the aforesaid components, the
dependency loss is re-determined as Rs. 4,53,600/- (Rs.2100 x12x18).
[13.] This brings me to the amount of compensation awarded
under the conventional heads. As fairly pointed out by learned
Page 19 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
advocate for the respondents-original claimants, no appeal has been
preferred by the respondents-original claimants against the impugned
judgment and award; however, considering the fact that the
appellant-Insurance Company has disputed the quantum of
compensation in the facts of the case and the evidence brought on
record, in order to do complete justice and bearing in mind the
beneficial legislation, this Court is inclined to re-consider the amount
of compensation awarded under the conventional heads, in light of
the well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
of Pranay Sethi (supra). Admittedly, the claimants are the parents of
the deceased, and therefore, are entitled to compensation under the
head of loss of consortium. Considering the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram
Alias Chuhru Ram reported in AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1249, both the
parents shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 48,400/- each towards
loss of consortium. As rightly submitted by the learned advocate for
the respondents-original claimants, the Tribunal lost complete sight of
the amount to be considered under the head of loss of estate as well.
Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case, the original
claimants are held entitled to an amount of Rs. 18,150/- under the
head of loss of estate. Similarly, the amount of compensation awarded
under the head of funeral expenses, is re-determined as Rs. 18,150/-.
Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined [ 14.] [ For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award is
hereby re-appreciated and re-determined. The same is reproduced in
tabular form hereunder:
Compensation Compensation
Under the Head of Awarded by the Awarded by this
Tribunal in Rs. Court in Rs.
6,48,000/- 4,53,600/-
Loss of Dependency
Loss of Consortium 20,000/- 96,800/-
Loss of Estate NIL 18,150/-
Loss of Funeral Expenses 5,000/- 18,150/-
Total 6,73,000/- 5,86,700/-
Interest 9%
[15.] Thus, the original claimants are held entitled to seek
recovery of sum of Rs. 5,86,700/- instead of Rs. 6,73,000/- as awarded
by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing
of the claim petition, till its actual realization, from the original
opponent nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally.
[16.] Resultantly, the First Appeal is partly allowed only on the
ground of quantum of compensation. The impugned judgment and
award dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.)& Additional District Judge, Junagadh, in Claim Case
Page 21 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
No.348 of 2004, is hereby modified by holding the original claimants
entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs. 5,86,700/- with interest at the
rate of 9% from the original opponent nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally,
till its actual realization.
[17.] Since the appeal is partly allowed, the appellant-Insurance
Company shall be entitled to seek refund of Rs. 86,300/- with interest
from the date of the deposit of the award amount, till its realization.
Thus, the Tribunal, shall be at liberty to proceed with the release and
disbursement of the entire award amount. After refund of the
aforesaid amount in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company, the
Tribunal is directed to release and disburse the award amount in
favour of the original claimants equally, subject to due verification,
strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in this regard. While making the payment, the learned
Tribunal shall deduct the Court Fees, if not paid, in accordance with
prevailing Rule. Let the aforesaid exercise be undertaken by the
Tribunal within a period of Two Weeks from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this order.
[18.] With these observations, the First Appeal stands
disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Record and proceedings, if any,
Page 22 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/613/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
are directed to be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along
with the Writ of this judgment. The interim relief granted by this Court
earlier, stands vacated forthwith, in view of the disposal of the First
Appeal.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
Page 23 of 23
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 23:53:05 IST 2026