Gujarat High Court
Ravjibhai Galabhai Parmar vs Kiritbhai Jenabhai Zala on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 569 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RAVJIBHAI GALABHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
KIRITBHAI JENABHAI ZALA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUNAL D PANDYA(3283) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants,
being the legal heirs of one Arvindbhai, who had
passed away on 04.03.2014 in an unfortunate road
accident. The appeal is against the judgment and
award dated 02.01.2018 passed in the concerned
MACP No.461 of 2014, by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxiliary) District-Kheda. In the said
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
judgment and award, the tribunal has partly allowed
the claim petition by allowing a recovery to the
claimants of the said petitions a sum of Rs.3,89,280/-
with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of claim
petition till its realization from the opponent no.1 and
2, exonerating the opponent No.3, the insurance
company of the unregistered Eicher 380 Tractor.
2. In so far as the fact pertaining to the accident are
concerned, it appears that on 04.03.2014 at about
8:30 p.m. when the deceased Arvindbhai was going
from village Nakhuti to Dhunadara on motorcycle
bearing registration No.GJ-7-BM-8323 (hereinafter,
“the motorcycle”), the opponent No.2, driving an
unregistered Eicher-380 Tractor (hereinafter,”the
tractor”) with full speed and in negligent manner,
dashed the said tractor onto the motorcycle. Owing to
the said accident, the said Mr. Arvindbhai lost his life.
3. The only ground on which the present appeal has been
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
preferred is the exoneration of the aforesaid insurance
company. It is the contention of the appellant (original
claimants) that the said exoneration is liable to be
interfered. In the alternative, it was submitted that
even if the Court considers that the Insurance
Company is not liable, more so in view of the fact that
the offending vehicle has not been registered with the
Regional Transport Office, then too, the Insurance
Company may please first be ordered to pay, and then,
to recover the said amount from the Owner/Driver of
the said unregistered Eicher 380 Tractor. Thus, it was
submitted that in view of the breach of policy
conditions, the judgment and award be modified to the
extent that the insurance company may be held liable
to first pay the claim amount to the appellants (original
claimants) with a liberty to the insurance company to
recover it from the opponents No.1 and 2 being the
owner and driver of the unregistered Eicher 380
Tractor involved in the accident.
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for the
appellant. He submitted that the reason why the
insurance company has been exonerated is that there
is a breach of policy condition, inasmuch as, the
tractor involved in the accident was not registered. It
was submitted that tribunal has observed in the
impugned judgment that the RTO Office has accepted
registration fees and tax, and yet, the registration
number of vehicle was not granted. It was, however,
the say of the learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar that
the concerned vehicle was not produced for inspection;
that the temporary registration number is only valid
for a month of the date of purchase of the vehicle. It
was further submitted that by that time, the vehicle
ought to be submitted for inspection. It was also
submitted that the fees and tax were paid only on
11.03.2014, which is after the date of accident. It
short, on date of the accident, the vehicle was not
having a valid registration number. It was submitted
that the witness, RTO Officer, Mr. Hemantbhai has
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
recorded the fact that as the vehicle was not produced
for inspection before the relevant authority and that
therefore the said registration number was not allotted
and that only the temporary registration number, as
was available from the showroom, where from the
tractor was purchased, was there with the vehicle and
which was only valid from the earliest of the following
two dates, namely, (1) production of the said vehicle in
the RTO office for inspection, or (2) one month from
the date of purchase.
5. It was thus submitted by learned advocate for the
appellant that this being only a breach of condition
therefore the insurance company may kindly be
ordered that it may first pay the amount adjudicated
by the Tribunal and, thereafter it may recover it from
the owner/driver of the vehicle, for the reason that the
it was only a case of breach of condition of the policy.
No other aspect of the judgment including the
negligence and the quantum of the compensation
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
awarded under the present matter has been
challenged, nor were such grounds pressed before this
Court.
6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the
insurance company respondent No.3. Mr. Vibhuti
Nanavati submitted that under the applicable law,
once there is a breach of condition, insurance
company cannot be held liable in the matter. It was
thus submitted that it is not the case of the other side
that there is not breach of the condition. He submitted
that therefore, in the present circumstances, the
finding of the tribunal to the extent that the original
opponent No.3 i.e. present respondent No.3 having
been exonerated may kindly be confirmed and may not
be interfered.
7. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties, this
Court proceeds to decide the present matter in terms
of hereinafter.
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
8. The following point of determination arises for the
consideration of this Court:
(a) Whether the exoneration of insurance
company on account of breach of policy
condition is liable to be sustained? Further,
would an order against the insurance company
to first pay the amount ordered under
impugned judgment and award, then recover
the said amount from the owner/driver of the
offending vehicle (unregistered Eicher 380
Tractor) been more appropriate in facts and
circumstances of the matter?
9. Indeed, it was a breach of condition of policy insuring
the vehicle in as much as the vehicles appears not to
have been produced before the RTO Office within the
statutory permissible limit for inspection.
Consequently, the formalities for providing a
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
registration number of the vehicle could not be
completed. It is thus admitted fact that the concerned
vehicle did not have registration number and that the
earlier temporary registration number was only valid,
at the highest for a period of one month from the date
of purchase. It is not the case of the appellant that the
vehicle, involved in the accident, caused the accident
within one month of the purchase of the vehicle and
that therefore, there is reason to believe that there was
breach of condition pertaining to vehicle having
requisite requirement of valid registration number and
permit at the time of the concerned accident, i.e.
04.03.2014.
10. Naturally, therefore there was a clear breach of
condition of the policy as regards valid
registration/permit of the vehicle. The learned
advocate for the appellant, when confronted with the
factum of Exhibit-36, i.e. copy of receipt signed by the
Gujarat Motor Vehicle Department dated 11.03.2014,
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
could not refute the fact that the accident was prior
(i.e. dated 04.03.2014) to the issuance of the said
receipt.
11. At this juncture, for the purpose of understanding the
broad principles of “Pay & Recover”, the judgement of
the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sunita
and others vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and
others, reported in MANU/SC/0934/2025 decided on
17.07.2025, may be referred. The relevant paragraphs
thereof are quoted hereinbefore for the ease of
reference.
“12. The next question which arises for our
consideration is whether the Insurance Company
is liable to indemnify the compensation amount
to the claimant-Appellant and, thereafter, recover
the same from the driver and owner of the
vehicle.
13. Adverting to the facts in hand, from a bare
perusal of the record, it is borne that the vehicle
in question was insured with “Liability Only
Policy” and no premium was paid to cover the
driver, owner, or a gratuitous passenger
travelling therein. However, even then, in our
view, the Courts below erred in holding that thePage 9 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation to the claimant-Appellants, for the
principle of “Pay and Recover” ought to have
been invoked. As such, we are inclined to
interefere with the above findings of the Courts
below.
14. We must advert to the exposition of this
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit
Kaur MANU/SC/0009/2004: 2004:INSC: 19:
(2004) 2 SCC 1. The deceased therein was
travelling as a gratuitous passenger, and due to
the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle, lost his life. The Insurance Company was
directed to satisfy the amount awarded by the
Courts below and recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle, as the premium was not
paid by the owner of the vehicle towards
gratuitous passenger.
15.The above position has been followed by this
Court in Anu Bhanvara v. IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/1077/2019:
2019:INSC: 890: (2020) 20 SCO 632 wherein the
injured person was travelling as a gratuitous
passenger and was not covered under the
Insurance Policy, the driver and owner of the
vehicle was held liable for payment of
compensation amount. This Court applied the
principle of “Pay and Recover and directed the
Insurance Company to pay the amount and,
thereafter, recover the same from the owner of
the vehicle.
16.The aforementioned principle was adopted by
this Court, in various judgments of this Court in
Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar
MANU/SC/0209/1998: 1998:INSC:140 (1998) 3
SCC 744; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M.
Jaya MANU/SC/0031/2002: 2002:INSC:30:
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
(2002) 2 SCC 278; National Insurance Co Ltd. v.
Challa Upendra Rao MANU/SC/0779/2004
2004:INSC:537: (2004) 8 SCC 517; New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi
MANU/SC/1087/2010; National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul MANU/SC/0006/2013:
2013:INSC: 3: (2013) 2 SCC 41; Manuara
Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh
MANU/SC/0194/2017: 2017:INSC:164: (2017) 4
SCC 796; and Puttappa v. Rama Naik
MANU/SCOR/87148/2018.
17. Applying the above expositions of law, the
Courts below ought to have directed the
Insurance Company to indemnify the amount
and thereafter recover the same.
18. Therefore, in light of the attending facts
and circumstances of the case, we are of the view
that the Insurance Company is liable to
indemnify the compensation amount awarded by
the Tribunal and recover the same only from the
owner of the offending vehicle.
19. In view of the above discussion, the driver
of the offending vehicle is not liable as he was
holding a valid driving license to drive the
offending vehicle i.e., TATA 407 Truck.”
12. As noticed, herein-above, there is a clear mandate of
Hon’ble Supreme Court that in view of the aforesaid
expositions of law in case of breach of policy
conditions, the directions of “pay and recover” ought to
be issued against the owner.
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
13. Question is, whether non-registration of a vehicle
constitutes breach of policy condition? The same has
been answered in affirmative by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. New India
Assurance Company Ltd. Reported in
MANU/SC/0762/2014:AIR 2014 SC 3761: 2014(a)
SCC 324. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, after referring to Section 39 and 43, read with
Section 192 f the Motor Vehicles Act concluded that
using a vehicle on the public road without registration,
is not only a punishable offence, but also a
fundamental breach of the terms of conditions of policy
contract.
14. To the aforesaid binding precedent, this Court most
respectfully abides. Thus, non-registration of vehicle,
constitutes to be a fundamental breach of policy
conditions, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited and others, (2014) 9 SCC 324.
The relevant portion of the said judgment is
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
reproduced hereinafter, for the ease of reference:
“12. Indisputably, a temporary registration was
granted in respect of the vehicle in question,
which had expired on 11.1.2006 and the alleged
accident took place on 2.2.2006 when the vehicle
was without any registration. Nothing has been
brought on record by the appellant to show that
before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of
temporary registration expired, the appellant,
owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent
registration as contemplated under Section 39 of
the Act or made any application for extension of
period as temporary registration on the ground of
some special reasons. In our view, therefore,
using a vehicle on the public road without any
registration is not only an offence punishable
under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but
also a fundamental breach of the terms and
conditions of policy contract.”
15. Thus, it is the view of this Court that in the present
fact and circumstances, the Insurance Company ought
to be directed to first pay the claims amount to the
appellant (original claimants) and thereafter recover
the same from the owner (respondent No.1 herein).
16. Insofar as the quantum on compensation is concerned,
the Court begs to note that though the said aspect was
pleaded in this Appeal, the same was not pressed at
the time of hearing of this Appeal. No other aspects of
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/569/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
the judgment were assailed in the matter. Hence, the
present appeal stands disposed of as partly allowed in
aforesaid manner.
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
CHIRAG D PAL
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:43:45 IST 2025