RATNABHAI JESABHAI vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3787/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3787 of 2006
==========================================================
RATNABHAI JESABHAI
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS BHAKTI M JOSHI(3820) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The original plaintiff appealed against the
judgment and decree dated 06.10.2005 passed by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Porbandar, in Special Civil Suit
No.55 of 2001, by which, the plaintiff’s suit was partly allowed
and it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an
amount of Rs.2,55,000/- from the defendant with running
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till
realization.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff –
Ratnabhai Jesabhai, a resident of Kolikhada and engaged in
the transport business, was the owner of truck bearing No.GJ-
11-U-8978 manufactured by Ashok Leyland Company. The
said truck was being used for transport business. The plaintiff
had purchased a comprehensive insurance policy for the said
truck from United India Insurance Company Ltd. (For short
‘Insurance Company’), commencing from midnight of
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:02 IST 2026
C/FA/3787/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
28.12.1999 till midnight of 27.12.2000. The estimated value of
truck was Rs.5,50,000/- and premium was paid accordingly.
2.1 On 16.07.2000, truck proceeded from Hyderabad
to Morbi carrying goods for transportation. On 18.07.2000,
while the truck was on the Basadvada-Nandubar Highway, it
got electrocuted and was extensively damaged. Pursuant to
the information lodged by plaintiff, the Insurance Company
conducted a survey of the damaged truck, took photographs
thereof, and a panchnama was prepared by the police during
the course of investigation. The truck was treated as a total
loss; however, the Insurance Company rejected the claim of
total loss.
2.2 In this background, plaintiff claimed compensation
of Rs.5,50,000/-, being the insured value of the truck, along
with interest. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 18%
per annum. Summons were duly served upon the Insurance
Company, and the Insurance Company filed its written state-
ment at Exh.18. The Insurance Company admitted acceptance
of the premium and issuance of the insurance policy covering
the truck for an estimated value of Rs.5,50,000/-, but denied
that the truck was roadworthy. The Insurance Company also
denied the incident of electrocution and the allegation that
the truck had suffered total loss. It was further contended that
even if the truck had suffered total loss as alleged by the
plaintiff, the plaintiff would not be entitled to anything beyond
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:02 IST 2026
C/FA/3787/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
the depreciated value of the truck as applicable under the
terms of the comprehensive policy prevailing at the time of
the accident. The Insurance Company denied all other aver-
ments and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
2.3 The learned Trial Court framed the issues at Ex.19,
after permitting both parties to led evidence and partly
decreed the suit and awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-
to the plaintiff with running interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of the suit till realization.
2.4 Being aggrieved, the original plaintiff preferred the
present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure, 1908.
3. Heard Learned advocate advocate Ms.Bhakti Joshi
for the appellant – original plaintiff and learned advocate
Mr.G.C.Mazmudar for opponent – Insurance Company.
4. Learned advocate Ms.Joshi submitted that the
learned Trial Court, while awarding compensation of
Rs.2,55,000/-, largely relied upon the deposition of the
surveyor at Ex.40, wherein the surveyor assessed the general
market value of the truck at approximately Rs.2,35,000/- to
Rs.2,50,000/- which is erroneous. In this background, the
plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the compensation, preferred
the present First Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the
memo of appeal.
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:02 IST 2026
C/FA/3787/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
4.1 Learned advocate Ms.Joshi relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 279 , particularly, in para 5 thereof.
She submitted that the Insurance Company had accepted the
value of the truck at Rs.5,50,000/- on 28.12.1999 and had
accepted the premium on such valuation. She further
submitted that once the contract between the plaintiff and
Insurance Company was concluded upon proper acceptance
and consideration, the Insurance Company could not
subsequently dispute the valuation of the truck accepted
under the comprehensive policy. She further submitted that
when the policy itself reflects that the Insurance Company
had accepted the insured declared value of the truck at
Rs.5,50,000/-, the learned Trial Court ought not to have
disregarded such documentary evidence and instead relied
upon the speculative assessment made by the surveyor
regarding the market value of the truck.
4.2 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Ms.
Joshi, submitted that the learned Trial Court committed a
serious and manifest error in partly allowing the suit and the
plaintiff was entitled to full compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-.
Therefore, she prayed that the impugned judgment and
decree be modified accordingly.
5. Per contra , learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar
appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the
valuation of Rs.5,50,000/- was merely an estimate made by the
insured and was not binding upon the insurer. He submitted
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:02 IST 2026
C/FA/3787/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
that the surveyor, being an expert, had rightly assessed the
market value of the vehicle, and the learned Trial Court had
correctly relied upon such evidence in the absence of any
contrary evidence. He, therefore, submitted that the learned
Trial Court had committed no error in awarding compensation
of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. I have heard the learned advocates for both sides
and perused the impugned judgment and decree as well as
the record and proceedings of the case. It is required to be
noted that this is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff on the
ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Trial
Court is on the lower side. The Insurance Company has not
challenged the impugned judgment and decree, which clearly
demonstrates that it has accepted the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court to the effect that the plaintiff was enti-
tled to compensation for the loss of the truck and the incident
was covered under the insurance policy. The learned Trial
Court framed the following seven issues:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover
the suit amount from the defendant ?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that suit is within time
limit ?
3. Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no
jurisdiction to try the suit ?
4. Whether defendant proves that suit is barred by law
of limitation?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get interest ? If yes, at
what rate?
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:02 IST 2026
C/FA/3787/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
6. What is due to the plaintiff?
7. What order and decree?
7. Issue No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative;
Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative; Issue Nos.3 and 4
are answered in the negative; Issue No.5 is answered by
awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum; and Issue
Nos.6 and 7 are answered in the final order.
8. In the aforesaid background, the issue that arises
for determination in the present appeal is whether the learned
Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence while awarding
compensation of Rs.2,55,000/. under Issue No.1. What Order
and Decree?
9. At the outset, let me refer to the insurance policy
of truck at Ex.29, which reflects that the truck was insured
under a comprehensive policy by the defendant – Insurance
th
Company for the period commencing form midnight of 28
December, 1999 till 27.12.2000. The accident resulting in
total loss of the truck due to electrocution occurred on
18.07.2000 i.e. during the subsistence of the policy period.
Learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar appearing for the
Insurance Company tried to raise that the estimated value of
the truck at Rs.5,50,000/- is not accepted by the Insurance
Company. However, such submission cannot be accepted. The
insured declared value of the truck at Rs.5,50,000/- has been
accepted by the Insurance Company while issuing the policy
at Exh.29, and the corresponding premium was also received.
It is undisputed fact that the policy was a comprehensive
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:02 IST 2026
C/FA/3787/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
policy covering own damage to the truck. The Insurance
Company had charged a premium of Rs.1,150/- specifically for
covering the risk of own damage to the truck valued at
Rs.5,50,000/-.
10. To disbelieve the valuation of the truck, the
learned Trial Court mainly relied upon the report of surveyor
Mr. Ajay P. Sharma at Exh.40. Mr. Ajay Sharma, who was
appointed by the Insurance Company, conducted a private
survey and estimated the market value of the truck at
Rs.2,35,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- on the basis of a speculative
assessment regarding the value of similar model truck
prevailing in the market. Unfortunately, the learned Trial
Court accepted the said report as conclusive and based its
judgment thereupon. Believing the reasons, this Court is
unable to subscribe to such an approach adopted by the
learned Trial Court.
11. In the case of Dharmendra Goel (supra) , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a similar factual situation,
observed in paras 5 & 6, as under:
“5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and
have gone through the record very carefully. The facts as
narrated above remain uncontroverted. Admittedly, the
accident had happened on 10th September, 2002 during the
validity of the Insurance Policy taken on 13th February,
2002 insuring the vehicle for Rs.3,54,000/- on a premium of
Rs.8498/- It is also the admitted position that the vehicle had
been declared to be a total loss by the surveyor appointed by
the company though the value of the vehicle on total loss
basis had been assessed at Rs.1,80,000/- We are, in the
circumstances, of the opinion that as the company itself had
accepted the value of the vehicle at Rs.3,54,000/- on 13th
February, 2002, it could not claim that the value of the
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:02 IST 2026
C/FA/3787/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
vehicle on total loss basis on 10th September, 2002 i.e., on
the date of the accident was only Rs.1,80,000/-.
6. It bears reiteration that the cost of the new vehicle was
Rs.4,30,000/- and it was insured in that amount on 19th
January, 2000 and on the expiry of this policy on 18th
January, 2001, was again renewed on 19th January, 2001 on
a value of Rs.3,59,000/- and on the further renewal of the
policy on 13th February, 2002 the value was reduced by only
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,54,000/-. We are, therefore, unable to
accept the company's contention that within a span of seven
months from 13th February 2002 to the date of the accident,
the value of the vehicle had depreciated from Rs.3,54,000/-
to Rs.1,80,000/-.
12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, it is evident that the valuation of the truck at
Rs.5,50,000/- was accepted by the insurer while issuing the
policy and accepting the premium of Rs.1,150/- for covering
the risk of own damage. The said valuation was accepted on
28.12.1999, and the accident occurred only about seven
months thereafter. The valuation reflected in the policy itself
was based upon the depreciated value of the truck.
Considering the short span between the issuance of the policy
and the accident, and also considering that the plaintiff would
be entitled to the salvage value of the damaged vehicle, this
Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff would be entitled to
compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the loss of the truck. To that
extent, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial
Court is required to be modified.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the present First Appeal
is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is partly
modified to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled to
compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest at the rate
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:02 IST 2026
C/FA/3787/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization.
13.1 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
balance amount before the learned Trial Court within a period
of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.
13.2 Upon deposition of the aforesaid amount, the
learned Trial Court shall disburse the same to the claimant/s
after following the due procedure. Decree be drawn
accordingly.
13.3 R&P, if any, be sent back to the concerned
Court/Tribunal.
14. Connected Civil Application, if any, does not
survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed May 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 13 14:47:02 IST 2026