UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. vs HARJIBHAI HAKUBHAI KAVAD
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 845 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT)
NO. 1 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 845 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.
Versus
HARJIBHAI HAKUBHAI KAVAD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Defendant(s) No. 3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.7
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7
MS SPRUHA JOSHI FOR MR TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Defendant(s) No.
3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.7
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2.1,3.1,3.2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 29/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the judgment and
order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the M.A.C.P. (Aux.),
Bhavnagar at Mahuva in M.A.C.P. No. 979 of 2015 [Old
M.A.C.P. No.517 of 2002] whereby, the Tribunal has partly
allowed the claim petition and has awarded compensation to
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
the tune of Rs.7,64,800/- along with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of application till its realization with
proportionate costs.
2. The succinct fact, which led to the filing of the captioned
appeal, are summarized as under;
(i) On 01.02.2022 at around 0030 hrs. in the mid-night
while deceased Bharatbhai Jinabhai Chudasama was
sleeping besides a Tractor parked inside Vadodara Sugar
Factory, the opponent No.1 drove-in with the Tractor
bearing Registration No.GJ-4H-4703 along with Trailer
bearing Registration No.GJ-4U-3647 in a rash and
negligent manner on account of which he lost over the
vehicle and the Tractor turned-over the deceased. The
heirs of the deceased, therefore, filed claim petition
before the Tribunal.
(ii) The Notice of claim petition was duly served upon
the respondents. The appellant-Insurance Company filed
its written statement vide Exh.19 whereas, the respondent
No.3 filed their reply vide Exh.34.
(iii) After considering the pleadings, the Tribunal framed
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
the following issues;
“1. Whether the applicant proves that the
deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver/s of the vehicle/s involved in this
accident?
2. Whether the applicants are entitled for
compensation? If yes, what amount and from
whom?”
(iv) Having considered the oral as well as documentary
evidence on record as also the submissions of learned
advocates for the parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the
claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.7,64,800/-
along with interest @ 9.00% per annum from the date of
application till its realization with proportionate costs.
(v) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and award, the appellant – Insurance
Company has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
4. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that the
accident took place inside the compound wall of the sugar
factory and therefore, it would not fall within the ambit of
“public place”, as defined under sub-section 34 of section-2 of
the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the Act”). In order to
substantiate his submission, learned advocate has drawn
attention of the Court to the Panchnama (Exh.58). Having
placed reliance upon the contents of the Panchnama, learned
advocate submitted that the accident took place inside the
compound of the sugar factory while the deceased was sleeping
inside the premises. It is submitted that the compound of the
sugar factory is not a “public place” and therefore, the
appellant ought not to have been saddled with the liability.
4.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate has
placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Abdulhamid Valimohmad v.
Ramaben Virpuri Goswami reported in 2016 ACJ 120 (Gujarat).
Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned
advocate submitted that the captioned appeal deserves to be
allowed.
5. Ms. Spruha Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
of Mr. Nayak for the respondents – original claimants,
submitted that the place where the accident took place is
accessible to farmers, workers, drivers, staff of the factory, etc.
and therefore, the place would fall within the ambit of “public
place”, as defined under section 2(34) of the Act. It was,
accordingly, urged that the Tribunal has not committed any
error in passing the impugned judgment and award.
5.1 In support of the submissions, learned advocate has relied
upon the judgment delivered by the coordinate Bench of this
Court in Asgarali Hasanali (decd.) through heirs v. Shamji
Nanji Solanki and others reported in (2018) 2 GLH 754.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates for the respective parties, it is to be noted that the
appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and award on
the ground that the vehicular accident took place inside the
premises of the sugar factory and therefore, the place of
occurrence of accident would not fall within the ambit of
“public place” as defined under section 2(34) of the Act. It
appears from the pleadings of the parties that the deceased
was sleeping besides a Tractor parked within the compound of
the sugar factory, during which time, the opponent No.1
drove-in the Tractor attached with the Trailer in a rash and
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
negligent manner on account of which the opponent No.1 lost
over the vehicle and it turned over the deceased. The
Panchnama of the place of accident at Exh.58 is also proved.
7. It emerges from the Panchnama that the place of accident
is located inside the compound of the sugar factory and in
view of the pleadings of the parties as well as the Panchnama,
there is no iota of doubt that the place where the accident
took place is located inside the compound of the sugar factory.
Now, the question that arises is as to whether the place where
the accident took place would fall within the ambit of “public
place”, as defined under section 2(34) of the Act. Sub-section
34 of section-2 of the Act is reproduced hereunder for the sake
of reference;
2(34). “Public Place” means a road, street, way or other
place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the
public have a right of access, and includes any place or
stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by
a stage carriage.
8. From the above definition, it is apparent that the general
public must have right of access to that place. Adverting to the
facts of the present case, it is a matter of fact that the place
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
of accident is the premises of the sugar factory, which is
frequently visited by farmers, drivers of different vehicles,
labourers, workers engaged in loading / unloading work,
employees of factory, etc. Therefore, apart from the deceased,
several other individuals engaged with the industry of sugar
factory would be visiting the said place. Therefore, the place
of accident is not only accessible to the deceased but, is also
accessible to other individuals connected with the sugar
producing industry. In the considered opinion of the Court, the
place of accident would fall within the ambit of “public place”
as defined under section 2(34) of the Act.
9. In the decision rendered in the case of Abdulhamid
Valimohmad’s case (supra) relied upon by learned advocate for
the appellant-Insurance Company, the coordinate Bench of this
Court has held agricultural filed owned by the husband of the
claimant would not fall within the ambmit of “public place”.
The facts of the case on hand are different. In the present
case, the place of accident is the premises of sugar factory,
which is accessible to other individuals connected with the
sugar industry. The drivers of different carriages, workers
engaged with the activity of loading / unloading of goods,
labourers, employees of the factory, etc. would visit the sugar
factory on daily basis.
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
10. At this juncture, reference can be made to the judgment
of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gujarat Ship Trading Corporation
reported in (1997) 3 GLR 736 wherein, the accident had taken
place inside the ship-breaking yard bearing Plot No.12 at
Bhavnagar. In paragraphs – 21 and 22, the Court observed as
under;
“21. The aforesaid unquestionable factual aspects clearly
go to show that the plot of the original claimant could
be said to have been covered by expression 'public place'
and it is rightly concluded that the said plot is forming
part and parcel of and covered under the definition of
‘public place’ as contemplated by section 2(34) of the
new Act. Therefore, the contention that the accident is
not proved to have occurred in the 'public place' is
required to be thrown away as it was rightly done by the
Tribunal.
22. Not only that, even alternatively use of the vehicle
and the manner and mode in which the accident took
place implicitly prompt us to believe that the vehicle on
account of mechanical failure and while reversing
breaking down of gear box and brake pipe all of a
sudden reverted from the main road to the open site of
the plot. Therefore, occurrence of the accident in
question was outside the geographical area and limits of
the plot. Because of heavy impact and effect of
mechanical failure the public carrier involved in the
accident retrieved or intruded back in the premises of the
plot. Therefore, on that count also the contention that
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
the accident did not take place in the 'public place' as
defined in section 2(34) of the new Act is totally
meritless and is required to be rejected.”
11. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Asgarali Hasanali (decd.) through heirs (supra), more
particularly, in paragraph-12 observed as under;
“10. In view of the principles laid down in the above
referred decisions read with section 147 and section 2(34)
of the Act, it is not in dispute that deceased Asgarali was
serving as daily wager in the aforesaid Jagdish Oil Mill
and he had clear access of the aforesaid Mill. Not only
that, but tanker No.GTX 2405 was also not belonging to
Jagdish Oil Mill which was brought in the said Mill in
order to load edible oil for transporting the same
elsewhere and therefore, though the property is private in
nature, but the deceased was working as labourer and
the officials who were serving in the said Mill as well as
other persons who are either supplying raw material and
lifting edible oil, all have access for carrying out their
activities and therefore, while carrying out such activities,
the said persons have been permitted to have access of
place of Jagdish Oil Mill. Under the circumstances,
learned Tribunal has fallen in error while appreciating
the provisions of law and wrongfully exonerated the
insurance company. In view of the aforesaid factual
position, so far as the deceased was concerned, the place
of Jagdish Oil Mill, Junagadh was public place in view of
clear provisions of section 147 read with section 2(34) of
the Act.”
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026
C/FA/845/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
12. Having considered the pleadings, oral as well as
documentary evidence record and the settled principle of law,
the Court is of the considered opinion that the place where the
accident took place is a “public place” within the definition of
section 2(34) of the Act.
13. In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is
dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the civil
application stands disposed of. Record and proceedings lying
before this Court be sent to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:55 IST 2026