✦ Gujarat High Court

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD v. SABIRBHAI THOHARBHAI & 1

Fa No. 6478 of 1995K S JHAVERI2 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
K S JHAVERI

Outcome

Partly allowed

Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs

Provisions considered

Judgment

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s) Versus SABIRBHAI THOHARBHAI & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SANDIP C SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, SERVED BY RPAD - (R) for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 16/01/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT

1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated

14.06.1995 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.III FA/6478/1995 JUDGMENT (Aux) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.19 of 1987 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.56900/- along with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of petition till its realization. It was also stipulated that if the amount is paid within three months the interest shall be at the rate of 12% per annum.

2.0 In the present case on 02.06. 1986 the claimant was traveling in an auto rickshaw. The said rickshaw turned turtle as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries and had taken treatment. He therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the impugned award came to be passed which is challenged in this petition.

3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the policy at Exh.21 and the statutory tariff for charging the amount of insurance and the affidavit of Administrative Officer Mr. Sapra. He further submitted that under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, liability with respect to passenger is limited to Rs.15,000/-. He also submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest at the rate of 15%.

4.0 I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant at length and perused the relevant documents on record. As regards the contention of statutory tariff or its limited liability is concerned, the Insurance FA/6478/1995 JUDGMENT Company has not chosen to examine its officer. Copy of the policy which is placed on record shows that the relevant column is blank. Undoubtedly no officer was examined to establish the limited liability of the Insurance company. In that view of the matter the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted.

Operative part

5.0 However, I am of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have granted interest at the rate of 15%. It should have been only 12%. Therefore the interest rate is reduced to 12% instead of 15%. The appellant shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% instead of 15% from the date of claim petition till realization. The excess amount deposed by the appellants qua 3% interest shall be refunded. The award is modified to the aforesaid extent. Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 95(2)(b)(ii).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gujarat High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Fa No. 6478 of 1995). ← Search more judgments