UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs RAMESHBHAI THAKARSIBHAI THAKOR PARMAR

C/FA/3532/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240595682022)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3532 of 2022
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
RAMESHBHAI THAKARSIBHAI THAKOR PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS.ZEEL RAVAL FOR MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 13/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant –
United India Insurance Company Ltd. being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 28.06.2022
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banaskantha
at Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.158 of 2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.04.2013, the
claimant was driving a jeep bearing registration No.GJ-9B-
1284 from Tharad towards Rampura at a moderate speed.
When he reached near the water tank, the driver of the trailer
bearing registration No.PB-06-G-9682, coming from the
opposite direction at an excessive speed, lost control over the
steering and dashed against the jeep driven by the claimant.
As a result of the impact, the jeep collided with a roadside
tree and overturned. The claimant sustained grievous injuries
in the said accident.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:01:29 IST 2026

C/FA/3532/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240595682022)
2.1 According to the claimant, he was 32 years old at
the time of the accident and was earning Rs.40,000/- per
annum by doing agricultural work.
2.2 In view of the aforesaid pleadings, the claimant
filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation in accordance with the
structured formula, impleading the owners and insurers of
both the trailer and the jeep as opponents.
2.3 The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition until realization,
together with proportionate costs. The learned Tribunal
directed opponent Nos.2 to 5 to deposit the aforesaid amount.
2.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and
award, the United India Insurance Company Limited, being
the insurer of the jeep, has preferred the present appeal
3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker for the
appellant – United India Insurance Company Ltd, learned
advocate Ms.Zeel Raval for learned advocate Mr.Ankit Shah
for respondent No.1, learned advocate Ms.Kirti Pathai for
respondent No.4 – Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.3 and 5.
4. The twofold submission canvassed by learned
advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker for the appellant is that the
claimant did not possess a valid driving licence, as admitted
by him in his cross-examination. It is further submitted that
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:01:29 IST 2026

C/FA/3532/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240595682022)
the Investigating Officer was examined to establish that the
claimant did not possess a driving licence to drive the jeep on
the date of the accident. According to the learned advocate,
the aforesaid circumstance clearly demonstrates that the
Insurance Company has been erroneously fastened with the
liability to pay compensation. It is further submitted that the
learned Tribunal failed to consider the absence of a driving
licence.
4.1 Upon the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate
for the appellant has prayed to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned advocates appearing for the
respective respondents have supported the impugned
judgment and award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record and proceedings. At
the outset, it would be apposite to refer to Section 163A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, (for short “the Act”) which reads as
under:
163A. Special provisions as to payment of
compensation on structured formula basis .—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any
other law for the time being in force or instrument having
the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the
authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death
or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the
use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the
Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case
may be.
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:01:29 IST 2026

C/FA/3532/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240595682022)
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,
“permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and
extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of
1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the
claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the
death or permanent disablement in respect of which the
claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect
or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned
or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of
living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to
time amend the Second Schedule.
7. Section 163A of the Act is a special provision
providing for payment of compensation on a structured
formula basis and begins with a non obstante clause . The said
provision, therefore, has an overriding effect over any other
provision of the Motor Vehicles Act or any other law for the
time being in force or any instrument having the force of law.
Sub-section (2) of Section 163A of the Act specifically provides
that the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish
that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which
the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect
or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles
concerned.
8. Considering the object and purpose of Section 163-
A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would be appropriate to refer
to paragraph 21.1 of the impugned judgment, which reads as
under:
21.1 It means that Policy, on the fateful day, was in
existence and was covering risk of paid driver and therefore,
Insurance Company opponent No.5 becomes liable
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:01:29 IST 2026

C/FA/3532/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240595682022)
compensation to the claimant. In this case the to pay
opponent No.1 driver is deleted. Hence, the opponent No.2
being owner of the trailer No.PB-06-G-9682 and opponent
No.2 being insurer of the said Trailer and opponent No.3
being owner of the Jeep No.GJ-09-B-1284 and the opponent
No.5 being insurer of the said Jeep, opponents No.2 to 5 are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
claimant.
9. It appears that the learned Tribunal has kept in
view the judgment of this Court in case of Valiben
Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) & Ors. V. Kandla Dock Labour
Board & Anr. Opponent Nos. 4 and 5 are the owner and
insurer, respectively, of the jeep driven by the claimant. The
learned Tribunal has fastened liability upon opponent Nos. 4
and 5 to pay compensation, thereby indicating that they are
liable to satisfy the claim arising out of the accident involving
the claimant, notwithstanding the claimant's own negligence.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the learned Tribunal has committed no error in
fastening liability upon opponent Nos. 2 to 5 jointly and
severally.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal, is hereby confirmed. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated. R&P, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 17:01:29 IST 2026