RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTDversusBHAVNABEN MORARIDAS GONDALIYA

   C/FA/2100/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2100 of 2022
                                 With
                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2101 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting             Yes          No
                                                         √
==========================================================
                RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                                Versus
           KAILASHBEN MANCHHARAM GONDALIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance in First Appeal No.2100/2022:
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 4

Appearance in First Appeal No.2101/2022
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No.3-6, 7, 9
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                         Date : 20/01/2026
                      COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

[1.0] Present two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short referred to as “MV Act”) have been preferred
by the appellant – original opponent No.2 – Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. against the impugned judgment and awards
dated 27.12.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Special), Rajkot (for short referred to as “learned
Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.1630/2015 and
1631/2015 respectively under Section 166 of the MV Act wherein



                                Page 1 of 6
    C/FA/2100/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petitions of original
claimants. The present appellant – insurance company has
challenged the present appeals challenging the liability Hxed on the
part of the appellant as the driver of oJending vehicle was not
holding valid and eJective license at the time of accident.

[2.0] The brief facts of the present appeals are that, on 10.09.2015,
while deceased       Manchharam Dayaram Gondaliya of MACP
No.1630/2015 (First Appeal No.2100/2022) and deceased Moraridas
Mayaram        Gondaliya   of   MACP      No.1631/2015       (First    Appeal
No.2101/2022) were on duty as part of their service, at that time,
Dumper No.GJ-13W-2875 fell down in stone mine, due to which
deceased persons sustained injuries and died. It is pertinent to note
that deceased Moraridas was serving as cleaner in the oJending
Dumper and deceased Manchharam Gondaliya was driver of the
oJending        Dumper.    Therefore,    the   original    claimants       Hled
respective claim petitions seeking compensation. Learned Tribunal
after appreciating the evidence hold the driver of oJending
Dumper to be sole negligent for the accident and directed original
opponent Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally satisfy the award in
favor of the original claimants.


[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar appearing for the
appellant – insurance company has submitted that the learned
Tribunal has materially erred in law and facts in holding that the
insurance company is jontly and severally liable with owner of the
oJeding Dumper to pay the compensation. He has further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not



                                 Page 2 of 6
   C/FA/2100/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




considering that the deceased driver of oJending vehicle was not
holding the driving license and there is not only violation of
condition of insurance policy but also the provisions of the MV Act.
He has further submitted that application Exh.16 seeking direction
to produce the driving license of the deceased was Hled before the
learned Tribunal though the claimants failed to produce the same
and hence, considering statutory breach of policy condition,
insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award. Alternatively,
he has submitted to either exonerate the appellant – insurance
company or to pass an order of ‘pay and recover’ to protect the
interest of the original claimants. As the deceased driver of
oJending Dumper was also negligent in causing the accident,
insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and on
that ground also, he has requested to allow the present appeals.


[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the
original claimants in respective appeals has opposed the present
appeals by submitting that the learned Tribunal has not committed
any error in saddling the insurance company with the liability to pay
the compensation as the insurance company failed to prove the
breach of policy condition and original claimants are third party and
they have nothing to do with breach of any policy condition. Hence,
he has requested to dismiss the present appeals.


[5.0] Having heard learned advocate appearing for the respective
parties and perusing the evidence on record, based on the principle
of preponderence of probabilities, learned Tribunal has held the
driver of oJending dumper to be negligent for the accident. So far


                              Page 3 of 6
   C/FA/2100/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




as liability part is concerned, insurance company has avoided its
liability on the ground that the driver of oJending vehicle was not
having any valid or eJective license and vehicle was being plied
without any driving license. To prove the said defence, insurance
company has not examined any witness. Merely Hling of application
calling upon the original claimants to produce the driving license of
the deceased driver of oJending vehicle is not enough. Perusing
the record and proceedings, it appears that said application is on
record wherein order “Hxed for hearing” was passed. Thereafter,
neither the learned advocate for the insurance company pressed
the said application nor any order is passed nor the learned
advocate for the insurance company insisted for hearing of the said
application. Not only that, subsequent thereto, to prove the said
defence, insurance company has not examined any witness and
mere making an averment in the pleading in itself is not a proof. To
prove the factum that on the date of accident, the deceased driver
of oJending vehicle was not having driving license, claimant No.1 of
respective claim petitions have Hled their respective aPdavits at
Exh.28 and widow of deceased driver has denied the fact that the
alleged accident took place due to negligence of her deceased
husband and she has emphatically replied that her husband was
having the driving license but same was misplaced during the
accident. She has further stated that she does not know as to in
which year, her husband got the license and she has not received
the copy of the driving license from the RTO oPce. She has
repeatedly denied the factum that at the time of accident her
husband was not having license. Considering the aforesaid fact,
once the witness has denied the fact that her husband was not



                              Page 4 of 6
   C/FA/2100/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




having the driving license, onus shifts on the insurance company to
rebut the said evidence either by examining the RTO OPcer or the
owner of the oJending vehicle. Herein, the owner of the oJending
vehicle was also a party to the claim petitions however, he did not
step into the witness box. Since the claimant No.1 has denied that
her deceased husband was driving the oJending vehicle without
holding driving license, question does not arise to come to
conclusion that on the date of accident, the driver of oJending
vehicle was not having any valid and eJective license. Hence,
learned Tribunal has not committed any error in saddling the
insurance company with the liability in absence of examination of
either the owner of oJending vehicle or any other witness by the
appellant – insurance company. Hence, in absence of any cogent
and reliable evidence, learned Tribunal has rightly saddled the
appellant – insurance company with the liability to satisfy the award
in light of section 149(2) of the MV Act. Further, in view of the
judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/O Late Laxmanbhai
Ramsinghbhai Thakore (Koli) vs. Kandla Dock Labour Board and
Another reported in 2022 (1) GLR 440, the learned Tribunal has not
committed any error in saddling the appellant – insurance company
with the liability to satisfy the award as additional premium has
been paid which factum is clearly revealed from the insurance
policy produced at Exh.33.


[5.1] So far as alternative prayer of the appellant – insurance
company to pass an order of ‘pay and recover’ is concerned, since
the insurance company ahs failed to prove fundamental breach of


                              Page 5 of 6
     C/FA/2100/2022                                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




policy condition, question does not arise to pass any such order of
pay and recover and said argument canvassed by learned advocate
appearing for the appellant – insurance company is also not
sustainable.


[6.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present First Appeals are
dismissed. The learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount
of compensation in favor of the respective original claimants as per
the impugned judgment and award with accrued interest thereon, if
any, to the original claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT /
RTGS, after proper veriHcation and after following due procedure.


[7.0] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid.



[8.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.


                                                                                           Sd/-
                                                                         (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/01/2026 14:22:13




                                                    Page 6 of 6