Allowed

Icici Lombard General Insurance v. Aashiyana Wd/O Alihusen Pandhara Heirs of Late Alihusen Nadibax Pandhara

Gujarat HC19 Jun 2018FA/1995/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.11.45 lakhs. The insurance company sought dismissal based on the vehicle being used to carry illicit liquor, arguing policy conditions were breached. The High Court held the accident was not caused by the illegal activity and the owner had no knowledge, thus dismissing the appeal and upholding the award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and civil application were dismissed; the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award was upheld.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Vs Aashiyana Wd/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/FA/1995/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1995 of 2018

¶4

With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018

¶5

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

¶6

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE

¶7

Versus

¶8

AASHIYANA WD/O ALIHUSEN PANDHARA HEIRS OF LATE ALIHUSEN NADIBAX PANDHARA

¶9

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

¶10

Appearance:

¶11

MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

¶14

and

¶15

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶16

Date : 19/06/2018

¶17

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

¶18

1.This appeal is filed by the insurance company

¶19

challenging the judgment and award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 30.12.2017 in MACP
No.323 of 2014.

¶20

2.Briefly stated, the facts are that during a
vehicular accident which took place on 09.07.2014,
one passenger in the car Alihusen Pindhara received

¶21

fatal injuries. His widow, minor children and aged
parents in all six in number therefore filed the said
Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakhs

¶22

Page 1 of 4

¶23

C/FA/1995/2018 ORDER

¶24

from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Before the Claims Tribunal, the main defense of the appellant insurance company was that the vehicle in question was being used for illegal ferrying of liquor when the accident occurred, the insurance company be therefore absolved from covering the risk. With respect to quantum of compensation, the claimants could not show the income of the deceased. The Tribunal however, believed that he was employed in the labour work and occasionally also driving a car. His income was believed to be Rs.5,000/- per month. Future rise was granted as suggested by the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 (3) GLR 536. Rest of the compensation was worked out on such basis and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.11,45,200/-. With respect to the insurance company's prime defense, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the vehicle was being used for illegal activity with the knowledge of the owner. Inter alia, on such ground, the Claim Petition was partially allowed.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

C/FA/1995/2018 ORDER

¶27

3.Before us, learned counsel for the insurance
company was not able to dispute the computation of
compensation adopted by the Tribunal. He however
heavily stressed on the issue of the vehicle being

¶28

used for illegal activity. He produced for our
benefit a copy of the insurance policy which contains
the limitations as to the use of the vehicle which
includes that the vehicle would be used only for
social, domestic and pleasure purpose and not for the
insured's business. He also produced an FIR dated
09.07.2014 lodged by the driver of the vehicle, in
which, he had stated before the police that on the
date of the accident he and the deceased were
traveling in the car carrying illicit liquor. He did
not know where the same was to be delivered.
Significantly, in his statement, he did not rope in
the owner of the vehicle.

¶29

4.We are prepared to proceed on the basis that at
the time of accident, the driver and the occupant of
the car were carrying illicit liquor. However, there
is nothing on record to suggest that it was on
account of this activity that the accident took
place. The driver in the FIR has stated that because

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

C/FA/1995/2018 ORDER

¶32

of sudden appearance of a vehicle, he lost control

¶33

over his own car and landed in a ditch. Thus, it
cannot be argued that the accident occurred because
of the nature of activity being carried on. Equally

¶34

importantly, the Tribunal in the impugned award has
recorded that there is no evidence to suggest that
the owner of the vehicle was aware about such
activity. Combined effect of these factual findings
would be that absolving the insurance company of its
liability to cover the risk of the owner would amount
to fastening the owner of vehicle with a liability to
discharge the decree for no knowledge or no fault of
his. Since the owner of the vehicle cannot be
attributed any act of breaching the condition of the
policy, the plea of the insurance company for being
absolved cannot be granted.

¶35

5.In the result, First Appeal along with Civil
Application are dismissed.

¶36

(AKIL KURESHI, J)

¶37

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶38

ANKIT SHAH

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Icici Lombard General Insurance v. Aashiyana Wd/O Alihusen Pandhara Heirs of Late Alihusen Nadibax Pandhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance v. Aashiyana Wd/O Alihusen Pandhara Heirs of Late Alihusen Nadibax Pandhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaykumar Babulal Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat

Bhagyodaya Oil Ginning Factory Vs State of Gujarat

Maulikkumar Shaileshbhai Pandya Vs Ashaben Maulikkumar Pandya

Raginiben Mahendrabhai Rana Vs State Election Commissioner

Bindyaba Narendrasinh Vala Vs Jitendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja