SUDHIRSINH DHANIRAMSINH RAJPUT vs MANSINH HARMATSINH RATHOD
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4058 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SUDHIRSINH DHANIRAMSINH RAJPUT
Versus
MANSINH HARMATSINH RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ARUNKUMAR R DAVE(8949) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
SHARMISHTA A DAVE(8735) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 22/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned
judgment and award dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (main), Sabarkantha at Himattnagar
in M.A.C.P. No. 24 of 2020 whereby the learned Tribunal had
partly allowed the Claim Petition of awarded the compensation
to the tune of Rs. 54,040/- along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its
realization.
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are
that on 09.06.2012, Sudhirsinh Dhaniramsinh Rajput was
working as a helper on a Hitachi machine under his employer,
Rathod Lalsinh Shivsinh. At about 11:00 a.m., a truck bearing
registration No. GJ-9-V-1692, driven by opponent No. 1 came
to the riverbank of Sabarmati for loading sand. While reversing
the said truck in a rash and negligent manner, opponent No. 1
dashed with Sudhirsinh Dhaniramsinh Rajput, resulting in a
vehicular accident. Due to the said accident, the Sudhirsinh
Dhaniramsinh Rajput sustained serious injuries including
fractures on various parts of his body, resulting in permanent
disability.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi on behalf of
claimant – appellant herein vehemently submitted that the
learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation to the tune of
Rs. 84,040/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of filing the petition till its realization, However,
the learned Tribunal had exonerated the Insurance Company
from satisfying the award on the ground that the accident took
place at a private place and also on the ground that the
original owner viz. Babulal Jawaharlal Jain had sold the said
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
vehicle on 25.01.2012 to Man Singh Harmatsinh Rathod.
However, the insurance policy was not transferred in the name
of the new owner.
5. It is submitted that the place where the accident took
place was also accessible to other vehicles; therefore, it cannot
be said that the place of accident was a private place. It is
submitted that the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor
Vehicles Act (MVA) do not apply to a third party. It is
submitted that the third party cannot be made to suffer on
account of the mistake of the original owner of the vehicle. In
support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of
Askarali Hasanali vs. Samjinanji Solanki & Others, reported in
2019 ACJ 2448, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of G. Govindan vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited, reported in 1999 (3) SCC 9025.
6. Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, he
submitted that the exoneration of the Insurance Company on
the aforesaid ground is not sustainable. Therefore, the
Insurance Company may be held liable to satisfy the award.
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
7. On the other hand, Ms. Sarmistha Dave, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company vehemently
submitted that the accident occurred at the riverbank of
Sabarmati, which was a private site for digging the sand. It is
submitted that the place was not accessible to the general
public at large; therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of a
"public place" as defined under Section 2(34) of the MVA.
8. It is submitted that the offending vehicle bearing
registration number GJ-9-V-1692 had already been transferred
by its original owner viz. Babulal Jawaharlal Jain on 25.01.
2012. As per the provisions of Section 157 of the MVA, the
owner of the vehicle has to intimate the Insurance Company
regarding the transfer of the vehicle within a period of 15 days
from the date of transfer. It is submitted that no such
intimation was sent to the Insurance Company by the owner of
the offending vehicle. The accident in question took place on
09.06.2012. Therefore, in the absence of the transfer of the
policy in the name of Man Singh Harmatsinh Rathod, the
Insurance Company cannot be held liable to satisfy the award.
9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Claimant-Appellant
submitted that at the time of the accident, the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license.
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance
Company to satisfy the award. It is submitted that, at the
most, the order of 'pay and recover' can be passed. It is
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
and award; therefore, the captioned present appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for
the parties, it is to be noted that, the claimant – appellant
herein has challenged the impugned judgment and award,
specifically challenging the exoneration of the Insurance
Company on the ground that the accident in question took
place at a private place, which is not accessible to the public,
and secondly, the policy was not transferred in the name of
the new owner after the transfer of the offending vehicle by
the original owner to Mr. Man Singh Harmatsinh Rathod.
11. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is the case of
the parties that the accident in question took place on
09.06.2012, at about 11:00 a.m., when the truck bearing
registration number GJ-9-V-1692 was being driven by
respondent no-1 herein and it had come for loading the sand
on the bank of the Sabarmati River. The Respondent No.1,
without taking any due care, reversed the said truck in a rash
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
and negligent manner and caused the accident. Thus, it is
evident from the pleadings as well as the panchnama of the
place of accident, proved at Exh.32 that the accident took
place on the bank of the river when the said truck came for
transporting sand from the said sand mine.
12. The learned Tribunal, while considering that the accident
took place in a private place on the lease site of Jalamsingh
Fatehsingh Rathod, which is not a private place, and after
considering the evidence on record, also observed as under:
“1. That the accident had taken place inside the river.
2. That this accident had taken place in the vicinity of
village Devpura on the bank of the Sabarmati River, in
the lease of Jalamsingh Fatehsingh Rathod.
3. That he had been serving on an Hitachi machine since
six months prior to the accident.
4. That sands are dug by the Hitachi machine, which is
then loaded into tractors and trucks.
5. That at the time of the accident, other tractors and
trucks had also come to load sand.
6. That he belongs to Uttar Pradesh, and at the time of
the accident in question, he had been residing at village
Devpura, Taluka Vijapur, District Mehsana.”
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
13. Thus, it is evident from the evidence on record that at
the site, some other tractors and trucks were also available.
Whether in these facts and circumstances, the place, which is
also accessible to other tractors, trucks, and persons such as
drivers, conductors, and loaders can be termed as a private
place. The term "public place" has been defined under Section
2(34) of the MVA as under:-
“2(34) 'public place' means a road, street, way or other
place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to or through
which the public have a right of access, and includes any
place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set
down by stage carriages.”
14. It is evident from the definition that a "public place" is a
place where the public has a right of access. The right of
access may be restricted or limited, or it may be absolute.
15. At the place of accident, it is evident that other trucks
and tractors were also available. Therefore, the place where
the accident took place was also accessible to other persons
who were working, or at the place of accident. Thus, in my
considered view, the place where the accident took place
would fall within the ambit of a "public place" with limited
access.
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
16. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
the case of Asgarali Hasan Ali (supra), wherein the Court
observed as under (Para-10):-
“In view of the principle laid down in the above-referred decision, read
with Section 147 and Section 2(34) of the Act, it is not in dispute that
the deceased Asgarali Hasanali was serving as a daily wager in the
aforesaid Jagdish Oil Mill and he had clear access to the aforesaid mill.
Not only that, but tanker No. GTX-2405 was also not belonging to
Jagdish Mill, which was brought into the said mill in order to load
edible oil for transporting the same elsewhere. Therefore, though the
property is private in nature, the deceased was working as a laborer, and
officials, who were serving in the said mills, as well as other persons,
who are either supplying raw material or lifting edible oil, all have
access for carrying out the activities. Therefore, while carrying out such
activities, the said persons have been permitted to have access to the
place of the deceased's oil mill. Under the circumstances, the learned
Tribunal has fallen into error while appreciating the provisions of law
and wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company. In view of the aforesaid
factual position, so far as the deceased was concerned, the place of the
Jagdish Oil Mill, Junagadh, was a public place within the view of the
clear provisions of Section 147 read with Section 2(34) of the Act.”
17. Now, adverting to the facts of the case, it is not in
dispute that the site of the accident in question was accessible
to other tractors and trucks. Thus, in view of the definition of
"public place", I am of the considered view that the place of
accident is a public place, which was accessible not only to
the deceased, but also to the other persons, who were engaged
in digging of sand and transporting of the same. Therefore, the
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
finding returned by the learned Tribunal that the place of
accident does not fall within the ambit of a "public place" is
not sustainable.
18. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant regarding the transfer of the policy in the name of
the transferee i.e. Man Singh Harmatsinh Rathod. It is not in
dispute that the offending truck bearing registration number
GJ-9-V-1692 had already been sold by Babulal Jawaharlal Jain
th
to Man Singh Harmatsinh Rathod on 25 January, 2012 and
th
the accident in question took place on 9 June, 2012. It is an
undisputed fact that on the date of the accident, though the
offending truck was transferred, it stood in the name of the
old owner, namely Babulal Jawaharlal Jain.
19. As per the provisions of Section 157 of the MVA, the
certificate of insurance has to be transferred in the name of
the transferee within 15 days from the date of transfer. Now,
the question arises as to whether in the absence of intimation
on the part of the owner of the vehicle to transfer the policy
in the name of the transferee, it would defeat the claim of a
third party.
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
20. The issue came before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of G. Govindan (supra), wherein at paragraphs 12, 13,
14, and 15, the Honorable Apex Court observed as under:-
“ 12. The heading of Chapter VIII of the old Act reads as "Insurance of
Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks". A perusal of the provisions
under Chapter VIII makes it clear that the Legislature made insurance of
motor vehicles compulsory against third-party (victims) risks. This Court
in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani, AIR
1964 SC 1736 after noticing the compulsory nature of insurance against
third-party observed that once the company had undertaken liability to
third parties incurred by the persons specified in the policy, the third
parties' right to recover any amount under or by virtue of the provisions
of the Act is not affected by any condition in the policy.
13. In our opinion that both under the old Act and under the new Act
the Legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest. It
appears that what was implicit in the provisions of the old Act is now
made explicit, presumably in view of the conflicting decisions on this
aspect among the various High Courts
14. Undoubtedly the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in
Anand Sarup Sharma V/s. P. P. Khurana, 1989 Acc CJ 577: (AIR 1989
Delhi 88) and also the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Mallikarjun, AIR 1990 Kant 166 differed
from the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's
case and held that the third party liability of the insurer comes to an
end on transfer of vehicle by the insured to someone else unless the
procedure prescribed for transfer of policy was fulfilled. As noticed
earlier, learned counsel on both sides brought to our notice a number of
judgments of different High Courts taking divergent views. We do not
feel it necessary to refer to all those decisions in view of the Full Bench
judgments of three High Courts noticed earlier.
15. As between the two conflicting views of the Full Bench judgments
noticed above, we prefer to approve the ratio laid down by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's case (AIR 1986 Andh Pra 62) as it
advances the object of the Legislature to protect the third party interest.
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
We hasten to add that the third party here will not include a transferee
whose transferor has not followed procedure for transfer of policy. In
other words in accord with the well-settled rule of interpretation of
statutes we are inclined to hold that the view taken by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah's case is preferable to the contrary views
taken by the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts (supra) even assuming that
two views are possible on the interpretation of relevant sections as it
promotes the object of the Legislature in protecting the third party
(victim) interest. The ratio laid down in the Judgement of Karnataka and
Delhi High Courts (AIR 1990 Kant 166 (FB) and AIR 1989 Delhi 88) (FB)
(supra) differing from Andhra Pradesh High Court is not the correct
one.”
21. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of G. Govindan, a mere failure to transfer the policy in
the name of the new owner would not defeat the right of a
third party. The Claimant herein is a third party, who
sustained injuries in the accident. Thus, the finding returned
by the learned Tribunal, whereby it exonerated the Insurance
Company on the ground that the insurance policy was not
transferred is not sustainable so far as the case of third parties
is concerned.
22. It has been argued on behalf of Ms. Dave, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that at
the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle
was not holding a valid driving license, therefore, the
Insurance Company has been rightly exonerated. A perusal of
the record transpires that the Insurance Company has neither
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
raised this plea before the learned Tribunal nor argued before
the learned Tribunal. The Insurance Company has also not
filed any separate appeal on this ground. Therefore, the plea
raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not
sustainable.
23. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion
that the finding returned by the learned Tribunal regarding the
exoneration of the Insurance Company is not sustainable.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be
modified to the aforesaid extent.
24. The Insurance Company shall deposit the awarded
amount, along with interest, within a period of four weeks
from today.
25. Upon depositing of the said amount of compensation, the
learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of
compensation to the Original-Claimant after deducting deficit
of court fee, if any, after due verification.
26. The amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of
this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the learned
Tribunal concerned forthwith. No order as to costs.
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026
C/FA/4058/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2026
27. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
PARMAR CHIRAG
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR CHIRAG(HC02371) on Sun Jul 12 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 12 19:07:11 IST 2026