THE ORIENTAL INURANCE CO LTDversusARCHANABEN WD/O PARIMALBHAI RAJPUT

      C/FA/1137/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1137 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

==============================================

              Approved for Reporting              Yes          No

==============================================
                  THE ORIENTAL INURANCE CO LTD
                               Versus
          ARCHANABEN WD/O PARIMALBHAI RAJPUT & ORS.
==============================================
Appearance:
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,7
==============================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 04/02/2026

                               ORAL JUDGMENT


1)      Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award

         dated 31.08.2021, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

         (Auxi.) Vadodara (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "the

         Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.870 of

         2012, the appellant – opponent no.3 therein – The Oriental

         Insurance Company Ltd., has preferred the present appeal under

         Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall


                                   Page 1 of 8
     C/FA/1137/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




        hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).


2)     Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. C. Thomas, for the appellant and

        learned Advocate Ms. A. B. Vaniya, for the respondent nos.1 to

        3, whereas, the respondent nos.4, 5 and 7 remained absent.

        Perused the original record and proceedings.


3)     It is the case of the original claimants – respondent nos.1 to 5

        herein, that on 10.01.2012 the deceased Parimalbhai Rajput was

        going for his job at GSFC Ltd., on his Motorcycle bearing Reg.

        No.GJ-06-DA-9171 and passing through Chhani Tolnaka at

        Bajwa turning point, at that time the opponent no.1 came by

        driving Tanker bearing Reg. No.GJ-06-Y-6025, in rash and

        negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the

        deceased as a result of the deceased thrown down from his

        motorcycle and dashed with the first wheel of the tanker and

        sustained serious injuries on his both legs and he was admitted

        in Bhailal Amin Hospital and his one leg is imputed but

        thereafter, his condition become critical and he died on

        19.01.2012. Therefore, the claimants had filed MAC Petition

        seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after

        appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed

        the claim petition.


4)     The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the



                                  Page 2 of 8
     C/FA/1137/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




        vehicle was already sold to the driver by the registered owner,

        hence, in absence of any contract between the insured and

        insurer then the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any

        compensation to the claimants. Further, the tanker was used for

        transportation of hazardous goods and there was no specific

        endorsement in Driving License for driving such vehicle as per

        Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the vehicle was

        driven by driver who was not holding driving license and there

        was statutory breach with respect to a valid and effective

        license. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.


5)     Learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3, has submitted

        that the deceased was a third part and he has nothing to do with

        the license and the coverage of the insurance policy was in force

        on the date of accident. Hence, question does not arise to

        exonerate the Insurance Company once the Insurance Company

        has accepted the premium. Hence, she has requested to dismiss

        the present appeal.


6)     Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and going

        through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has

        considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in

        the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC

        2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in

        2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on


                                 Page 3 of 8
     C/FA/1137/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




        preponderance of probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered

        the affidavit at Exhibit 14 wherein all the facts of the accident

        have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the

        claim petition. The learned Tribunal has perused the complaint

        at Exhibit 17, panchnama at Exhibit 45, Inquest Panchnama at

        Exhibit 46, PM Report at Exhibit 50, Driving License of opponent

        no.1 at Exhibit 48, RTO Certificate at Exhibit 49, and after

        perusing the evidence the learned Tribunal came to the

        conclusion that the opponent no.1 is a sole negligent for

        occurrence of accident and charge-sheet is also filed against

        him.


7)     The present appeal is filed on the ground of liability and the

        liability is disputed on two grounds, first that the vehicle is

        already sold out and there is no contract between insured and

        insurer and another ground is that on the date of accident the

        driver of offending vehicle was not holding effective license as

        the same was expired in the year 2008 and the accident was

        occurred in the year 2012. The opponent no.3 Insurance

        Company to prove the defence has examined opponent no.2 –

        Nirmalsingh Harvansingh Bhillon at Exhibit 36, who is the

        registered owner of the tanker bearing Reg. No.GJ-06-Y-6025,

        and he has deposed that on 28.01.2011 he has sold the said

        tanker to opponent no.1 Gurmitsingh Swaratsingh and the same



                                 Page 4 of 8
C/FA/1137/2022                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




   is not transferred in the name of opponent no.1. Perusing the

   Insurance Policy at Exhibit 40 it appears that the policy was in

   force from 12.03.2011 to 11.03.2012 and the accident took

   place on 10.01.2022 and accordingly the policy was in force at

   the time of accident and the opponent no.2 is the registered

   owner as per Section 2(30) of the MV Act. In this regard

   reference is required to be made to the judgment of Three-

   Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Naveen

   Kumar Vs. Vijay kumar and others, reported in AIR 2018

   Supreme Court 983, held in para 12 reads under :

           12. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges
           from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of
           the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30), it is the person in
           whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for
           the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the ‘owner’.
           However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the
           minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor
           vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease
           or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle
           under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a
           situation such as the present where the registered owner
           has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be
           reflected in the records of the registering authority as the
           owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of
           liability.   Parliament   has      consciously    introduced         the
           definition of the expression ‘owner’ in Section 2(30),
           making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19)
           in the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the



                                Page 5 of 8
     C/FA/1137/2022                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




                provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor
                accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the
                deceased   victim   should        not   be   left   in   a   state    of
                uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be
                burdened with following a trail of successive transfers,
                which are not registered with the registering authority. To
                hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and
                purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed
                must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In
                the present case, the First respondent was the ‘owner’ of
                the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of
                Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands
                fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured.
                The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of
                the judgments of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala
                Devi.”

8)     Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Bihari

        Gupta Vs. Manmet & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 948,

        referred the aforesaid Three-Judges Bench decision. Therefore,

        as per Section 2(30) of MV Act owner means a person in whose

        name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes

        of the Act, would be treated as the owner. In the present case

        till date the ownership of the tanker is not transferred and the

        name of opponent no.2 is reflected as owner in the record of

        RTO Authority, hence, the liability of registered owner to pay the

        compensation is not be absolved and therefore arguments of the

        learned Advocate for the appellant is not acceptable.




                                    Page 6 of 8
      C/FA/1137/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




9)      If for the sake of arguments if we consider that on 28.01.2011

         the tanker was sold and the driver was not the insured of the

         vehicle and the policy was issued in favour of the opponent no.2

         then also once the policy was in force then it is the duty of the

         Insurance Company to satisfy the claim to the third party as per

         Section 150 of the MV Act and hence on that count also the

         argument canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant is

         not acceptable.




10)     So far the issue of Driving License of the opponent no.1 is

         concerned, no such defence was raised before the Tribunal and it

         is the first time such defence is raised in the appeal and who

         asserts the fact has to prove the same, therefore, in absence of

         any material or evidence the learned Tribunal has not committed

         any error in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company and

         even the deceased was a third party and he has nothing to do

         with the condition of the Driving License. This is not the case of

         invalid Driving License or there was no driving skill of the

         opponent no.1, but as per the submission of the learned

         Advocate for the appellant that the opponent no.1 was holding

         license but the same was expired and not renewed but no

         evidence is lead as to after 2008 the Driving License of the

         opponent no.1 was not renewed or ineffective. In view of above,




                                  Page 7 of 8
        C/FA/1137/2022                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2026




            the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and the

            arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant

            is not accepted. Further, the findings of the Tribunal qua factum

            of death, negligence and quantum does not call for any

            interference and not required to be disturbed and hence no

            interference is required with the judgment and award dated

            31.08.2021, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims

            Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara, in MAC Petition No.870 of 2012.


 11)        Record and proceedings (if any) be remitted back to the

            concerned Tribunal forthwith.


 12)        Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.




                                                                               (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

 ANKIT JANSARI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/02/2026 18:17:24




                                                        Page 8 of 8