FA/5323/2007 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 5323 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14905 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 to 5 NO ========================================================= NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus MINIBEN SOMBHA MANEK HEIRS OF RAMBHA SOMABHA MANEK & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS MEGHA JANI for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 16/01/2008 CAV JUDGMENT 1. The appellant insurance company has, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short), sought to challenge the FA/5323/2007 2/6 JUDGMENT award dated 05.06.2006 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar in MACP No.477 of 2005 whereunder respondent No.1 is awarded compensation of Rs.3,24,500/- with 7.5% interest and cost, under section 163-A of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted paper-book of the relevant evidence for the purpose of perusal and fullfledged hearing of the appeal at the admission stage. 2. There is no dispute about the facts that, on 28.6.2005 at about 1300 hours, deceased met with the accident near village Devpara while he was trying to climb the tractor and he came to be crushed under the wheel of the tractor even as the driver suddenly started the tractor No.GJ- 12K-1068 insured by the appellant. He was aged 20 and working as a labourer at that time. 3. Reiterating the contentions of the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal, it was vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that registration book of the tractor carried an endorsement of exemption till it was used for agricultural purposes and the certificate of insurance clearly stipulated the liability to be limited to third-party risks and the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act towards FA/5323/2007 3/6 JUDGMENT employees of the insured. It was submitted that, except driver, nobody was permitted to sit on the tractor and the policy was subject to IMT Endorsement Nos.5, 21, 24 and 40. It was further submitted that the deceased victim of the accident ought to have been treated either as an employee or a gratuitous passenger and as such the insurance company could not have been held liable to satisfy the award in view of recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and others [(2007) 5 SCC 428], National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut [(2007) 3 SCC 700, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and others [(2006) 4 SCC 404]. It was also submitted that, since the claimant was the mother of deceased, the Tribunal ought to have deducted two-thirds of the income of deceased towards personal expenses and multiplier of 12, instead of 16, ought to have been applied in determining the amount of compensation. 4. It was seen from the record and the impugned judgment that liability in respect of a third-party was fully covered by the terms of policy in terms of statutory provisions of the Act. The motor vehicle, i.e. tractor, being FA/5323/2007 4/6 JUDGMENT exempt for the purpose of motor vehicle tax was wholly irrelevant, the accident had arisen out of use of the tractor in a public place and the deceased having been crushed under the wheel of the tractor and his heirs having made the claim under the provisions of section 163-A of the Act, the insurance company was statutorily required to pay compensation in accordance with the structured formula prescribed under that section. 5. The liability of the insurance company in the context of the provisions of section 163-A has come to be extensively argued and critically examined recently in a group of First Appeals, being First Appeal No.2042 of 2007 and allied matters. This Court has, after elaborately discussing the relevant provisions and similar arguments based on the aforesaid judgments, adopted the view that liability arising under section 163-A of the Act must now be deemed to have been covered as statutory liability regardless of the pecuniary limit or other conditions in that regard specified in the policy or the premium charged. Status of the victim of accident as tortfeaser, pillion rider, employee of the insured or gratuitous passenger was wholly irrelevant for the purpose of adjudicating a claim for compensation under section 163-A of the FA/5323/2007 5/6 JUDGMENT Act. It is held in the aforesaid judgment pronounced today: "11. Therefore, following the judgments directly applicable in the cases under section 163-A and in view of the benevolent scheme of creating a statutory liability of the insurer, independent of the terms of policy and any other provision of law, it is held that the pleas and defences of the victim of the accident being tortfeaser, pillion rider, gratuitous passenger or employee of the insured were not available to the insurer for avoiding or defeating its liability to pay compensation in accordance with the prescribed formula. And the issues raised by the appellant having found to have been squarely covered by the binding decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, the appeals have been dismissed by the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid set of appeals. 6. Accordingly, adopting the same view and for the reasons elaborately discussed in the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal is summarily dismissed at the threshold. Civil FA/5323/2007 6/6 JUDGMENT Application does not survive in view of disposal of the appeal and accordingly stands disposed as rejected. ( D.H.Waghela, J.) (KMG Thilake)