Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Hiraben Bhalabhai Malivad on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/870/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 870 of 2025
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
HIRABEN BHALABHAI MALIVAD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1) The present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 26th July, 2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Dahod at Limkheda in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 173 of 2020.
2) Heard Mr. Rathin Rawal, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3) It is the case of the claimants that on 6 th November 2019, the deceased was travelling in a Bolero Jeep when its driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the Bolero Jeep collided with the roadside, resulting in an accident. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:09:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/870/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined succumbed to death. Therefore, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation.
4) Appellant has assailed the award mainly on the ground that the findings of the learned Tribunal are erroneous and contrary to the provision of law and the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence and to saddle with the liability of appellant insurance company - original opponent No. 3 as on the date of the accident, the driver did not have any valid or effective licence to drive the Bolero Jeep. Therefore, due to the breach of a fundamental condition of the policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the facts and evidence produced below Exhibit 35, which contained the status of the criminal case wherein the driver of the vehicle was prosecuted under Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also submitted that the application filed below Exhibit 31 for examining the RTO Officer was rejected. Hence, learned Tribunal has erred in saddling the liability of the Insurance Company. It is therefore requested to exonerate the Insurance Company due to the fundamental breach of the policy. Hence, requested to allow the present application.
5) Learned Advocate appearing for the claimants has opposed the application and submitted that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence, and that the opponent- Insurance Company has failed to prove its defence. It is further submitted that the driver and owner did not appear before the Tribunal and did not deny the factum of the accident. Therefore, in the absence of supporting material evidence, the Insurance Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:09:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/870/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Company may be exonerated. Hence, it is requested that the appeal may be dismissed.
6) Having heard the learned advocates for both parties, it appears that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-03-BT-6656, in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and subsequently died. The fact of his death is not in dispute. However, the award has been challenged only on the limited ground of liability, namely, that on the fateful day, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid or effective driving licence, which amounts to a breach of the policy conditions.
7) To prove the fact, the Insurance Company examined its Legal Officer, whose evidence is recorded below Exhibit 35, and produced a copy of the charge-sheet filed under Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act to show that, on the date of the accident, the driver was not holding a valid and effective licence. However, apart from this, no other evidence has been produced on record. The driver of the offending vehicle has not denied the occurrence of the accident, nor has he stepped into the witness box. He has also not challenged the evidence led by the claimant. The claimant has tendered her evidence below Exhibit 17, and the Insurance Company did not put any questions to her or challenge her testimony in cross-examination. The Insurance Company has produced only the status report of the criminal proceedings pending before the J.M.F.C. Court, Varahi, but has not produced the judgment. It is well settled that merely filing a charge-sheet or relying on the allegations contained in it does not constitute conclusive proof.
Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:09:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/870/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined 8) In view of the above, it appears that the Insurance Company
failed to prove the defence. Merely, to take the defence in the pleading is not enough and who asserts the fact has to prove the said fact. Insurance Company has to lay the evidence to prove that the opponent was not holding any valid and effective licence at the time of the accident. Insurance Company has examined its legal officer below Exhibit 35, but having no personal knowledge he has produced only the copy of the charge-sheet and mere production of the charge-sheet is not enough and not a conclusive proof to draw the inference or to presume that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle having no valid and effective licence and merely production of the said copy of the charge-sheet is not a proof to show the breach of Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
9) Hence, in the absence of any conclusive proof, the Tribunal cannot presume that Opponent No. 1 was prosecuted under Sections 3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act or that he was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of the accident.
10) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the absence of any evidence, merely taking a defence in the pleadings is not sufficient to establish the defence. Further, the mere production of documents relating to the criminal proceedings or the findings of the criminal court is not binding on the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to independently consider the evidence presented before it on its own merits. If the Insurance Company wishes to establish such a defence, it must do so through Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:09:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/870/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined witnesses with personal knowledge or by producing other reliable material or evidence to substantiate the same.
11) In view of the above conspectus, as the Insurance Company failed to prove the said defence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company. Therefore, no interference is required, and the appeal is dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) GARVITA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Wed Dec 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:09:50 IST 2025