STATE OF GUJARAT vs KAMLABEN ASHABHAI PARMAR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/2747/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2747 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KAMLABEN ASHABHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHISHEK D JAIN for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR H M SHAH(3997) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR PRASHANT MANKAD(2189) for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 29/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 26.03.2013 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & Additional District Judge, at Anand, in
M.A.C.P. No. 1890 of 2006 (Old M.A.C.P. No.844 of 1995), whereby the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a
sum of Rs.7,56,100/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,
from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and held
the original opponent No.1/respondent No.4 herein – driver, original
opponent No.3/appellant herein – State/Mamlatdar & original opponent
No.4/respondent No.6 herein – Election Commission, jointly and
severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the
original claimants, while the original opponent No.2/respondent No.5
herein – Owner of the vehicle was exonerated from his liability to satisfy
the award.
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:26 IST 2026
C/FA/2747/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal,
as narrated in the Claim Petition are summarized as under:-
i. On 25.11.1994 at about 07:15 p.m., Deputy Mamlatdar -
Mr. Ashabhai (hereinafter referred to as the “ deceased ”)
was returning from Changda to Khambhat after
conducting his election duty, by travelling in a jeep
bearing registration No.GJ-7A-3337. The said jeep was
being driven by original opponent No.1/respondent No.4
herein at very excessive speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, resultantly, he lost control over the
steering over his jeep and the said jeep turned turtle,
thereby causing the vehicular accident. The deceased
sustained grievous injuries in the said vehicular accident
and he succumbed to the said injuries during treatment.
ii. It is also the case of the original claimants/respondent
Nos.1 to 3 herein before the learned Tribunal that at the
time of the vehicular accident, the deceased was aged
about 51 years and was working as a Deputy Mamlatdar,
thereby earning salary of Rs.5,538/- per month.
Therefore, Claim Petition was preferred before the
learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.12,00,000/-.
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:26 IST 2026
C/FA/2747/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the
Claim Petition, original opponent No.1/respondent No.4
herein – driver of the jeep involved in the vehicular
accident, original opponent No.2/respondent No.5 herein
– owner of the jeep involved in the vehicular accident &
original opponent No.3/appellant – State/Mamlatdar had
filed their respective Written Statements, thereby denying
the averments made in the Claim Petition, and in brief,
prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.
iv. Having considered the pleadings, evidence on record and
the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the
respective parties, learned Tribunal had partly allowed the
Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.7,56,100/- along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date
of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the original opponent
No.3/appellant - State/Mamlatdar has filed the captioned
appeal, thereby challenging the impugned judgment and
award on the ground of liability attributed to the it by the
learned Tribunal.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Mr. Abhishek D Jain, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the
appellant – State/Mamlatdar vehemently submitted that at the time of
the vehicular accident, the State/Mamlatdar was not the owner of the
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:26 IST 2026
C/FA/2747/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
vehicle involved in the accident, however, the learned Tribunal has
fastened the liability upon the appellant – State/District Mamlatdar to
satisfy the award. He submitted that at the time of the vehicular
accident, original opponent No.2/respondent No.5 herein – Mr.
Dahyabhai Patel was the owner of the vehicle in question. He further
submitted that the vehicle stands in the name of original opponent
No.2/respondent No.5 herein, as such, argued that no liability can be
fastened upon the appellant – State/Mamlatdar to satisfy the award.
Therefore, he prayed that the appellant – State/Mamlatdar be
exonerated from its liability to satisfy the award and prayed that the
impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
5. Per contra, Mr. H M Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the original claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein vehemently
submitted that the vehicle in question was requisitioned by the
appellant – State/Mamlatdar for the purpose of election duty. He
further submitted that at the time of the vehicular accident, the
deceased – Deputy Mamlatdar was travelling in the said vehicle for
official purpose from Changda to Khambhat. He contended that since
the vehicle in question, i.e., jeep bearing registration No.GJ-7A-3337
was requisitioned by the State for a period commencing from
24.11.1993 to 30.11.1994 for the purpose of election duty, the said
vehicle at the relevant point of time was under the total control of the
appellant -State/Mamltdar. Therefore, he submitted that the learned
Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the original opponent
No.3/appellant herein – State/Mamlatdar, original opponent
No.1/respondent No.4 herein – driver, & original opponent
No.4/respondent No.6 herein – Election Commission to jointly and
severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the
original claimants. As such, he contended that there is no infirmity in
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:26 IST 2026
C/FA/2747/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
the impugned judgment and award. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the original claimants has placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi reported in 2007 (0) GLHEL-
SC-40209 and District Magistrate and District Election Officer
and Collector, Gwalior, M.P. v. National Insurance Company
Limited reported in Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 279 . Having
placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the original claimants contended that the
captioned appeal preferred by the appellant -State is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it
is to be noted that the appellant - State has challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground of liability attributed to it by the
learned Tribunal.
7. It is not in dispute that at the time of the vehicular accident, the
vehicle in question was in the possession and control of the appellant –
State and the same was requisitioned for the purpose of election duty.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepa Devi (supra), on facts and
circumstances similar to the present case, has observed as under : -
“16. In The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya
Kumar Samal and Others [1988 (2) T.A.C. 25] where the
vehicle was requisitioned by the Collector for election duty,
the High Court of Orissa held:
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:26 IST 2026
C/FA/2747/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
"In a vehicle requisitioned, the driver remains under
the control of the Collector and by such driving the
vehicle he can be accepted to have been employed
by the Collector. Thus, the Collector would be
vicariously liable for the act of the driver in the
present case."
See also New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Ramulamma
and others 1989 ACJ 596.
17. In Chief Officer, Bhavnagar Municipality and another
v. Bachubhai Arjanbhai and others [AIR 1996 Gujarat 51],
the High Court of Gujarat held:
"7. The facts on record clearly indicate that the
vehicle in question which belonged to the State of
Gujarat was entrusted to the Municipality for
distribution of water to the citizens. It was implicit in
allowing the vehicle being used for such purpose
that the State of Gujarat which owned the vehicle
also caused or allowed any driver of the Municipality
who was engaged in the work of distribution of
water to the citizens, to use motor vehicle for the
purpose. Therefore, when the vehicle was driven by
the driver of the Municipality and the accident
resulted due to his negligence, the insurer of the
vehicle became liable to pay the compensation under
the provisions of the Act. It is, therefore, held that
the State, as the owner of the vehicle and the
respondent Insurance Company as its insurer were
also liable to pay the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal"
18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the State shall
be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the
claimants and not the registered owner of the vehicle and
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:26 IST 2026
C/FA/2747/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
consequently the appellant herein.”
8. Further, recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in District
Magistrate and District Election Officer and Collector, Gwalior,
M.P. (supra), having considered the similar facts and circumstances
wherein a vehicle was requisitioned by the government for gram
panchayat elections, held that public authority requisitions changes the
nature of possession and control entirely and observed in Para 9 as
under :-
“9. When a public authority requisitions a privately
owned vehicle for public purposes, the nature of
possession and control changes entirely. The owner is
divested of custody and decision- making power, and the
vehicle is placed at the disposal of the State for
governmental functions. During this period, the owner
neither directs its use nor derives any benefit from it. It
only stands to reason that in such circumstances, if an
untoward incident occurs, responsibility would properly to
rest with the requisitioning authority and not with the
insurer engaged by the owner for ordinary, private or
commercial use, as the case may be. Once requisitioned,
the vehicle is operated under official directions. The
authority determines the manner of deployment, the
purpose for which it is used, and the conditions under
which it is operated. The owner has no say in these
matters. Where control is assumed by the State, the legal
consequences arising from that control cannot, in fairness,
be shifted back to a private insurer whose contractual
engagement was premised on a wholly different footing. It
is equally important to recognize that a requisition is not a
voluntary arrangement, instead it is a command issued
under statutory authority, as stated by the judgments
referred to supra. The owner does not consent to part with
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:26 IST 2026
C/FA/2747/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
possession; he is compelled to do so. The insurance policy
obtained by him envisions and accounts for the vehicle’s
regular and lawful use in the ordinary course. Compelled
deployment for public functions cannot reasonably be
characterised as “regular use” within the ‘usual’
contemplation. To fasten liability upon the insurer in these
circumstances would be to extend the contract beyond the
risk that was agreed to be covered. Requiring the insurer
to answer for consequences arising from a use neither
authorised nor controlled by the insured would be unfair.
The insurer assesses and underwrites risk based on the
insured’s ordinary operations. When the State steps in,
assumes control, and deploys the vehicle for its own
purposes, it assumes with that control the corresponding
responsibility. Further, when statutory power is exercised
to requisition private property in the public interest, that
power carries with it an obligation to answer for the
consequences flowing from such compelled use. To hold
otherwise would impose upon private parties and their
insurers the burden of risks generated exclusively by
governmental action.”
9. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute
that the at the time of the vehicular accident, the vehicle in question
was requisitioned by the appellant – State for the purpose of election
duty and the same was in the active control and supervision of the
appellant- State. Hence, considering the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Deepa Devi (supra) & District Magistrate
and District Election Officer and Collector, Gwalior, M.P.
(supra), I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has
rightly fastened the liability upon the original opponent No.3/appellant
herein – State/Mamlatdar, original opponent No.1/respondent No.4
herein – driver, & original opponent No.4/respondent No.6 herein –
Election Commission to jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:26 IST 2026
C/FA/2747/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
amount of compensation to the original claimants and has rightly
exonerated the original opponent No.2/respondent No.5 herein from his
liability to satisfy the award. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the learned Tribunal’s findings.
10. Thus, after a thorough examination of the case records, this court
finds no merit in the submissions advanced by the learned AGP for the
appellant - State. No error or infirmity is evident in the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. As such, the captioned
appeal preferred by the appellant – State stands dismissed.
11. At this stage it has been pointed out that the appellant has
deposited some amount with the learned Tribunal in the execution
proceedings. That amount shall be disbursed to the original claimants
forthwith. Further, any party held liable by the learned Tribunal shall
deposit their respective share (if not already deposited) with the
learned Tribunal forthwith and after due verification, the learned
Tribunal shall disburse the same to the original claimants, after
deducting any deficit court-fee, if any.
12. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this
Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith.
Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal
concerned. No order as to costs.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 19:05:26 IST 2026