Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Aadesh@Aavesh@Avdhesh Suresh ... on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
21-FA-133-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.133 OF 2023
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY )
LIMITED )...APPELLANT
V/s.
MASTER SHUBHAM RAMAVADH GUPTA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17614 OF 2022
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.2141 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.133 OF 2023
Mr.Pandit Kasar, Advocate for the Appellant in FA/133/2023.
Mr.T.J.Mendon, Advocate for the Applicant in IA/17614/2022 and for
the Respondent in FA/133/2023.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 17th AUGUST 2023
P.C. :
1. Although Record and Proceedings are awaited in the matter,
Mr.Kasar would submit that the short point that would decide the
Appeal is that despite settled law, the Tribunal has not considered that
mere not filing of Appeal against the order in an application under
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act), should not be
avk 1/3
21-FA-133-2023.doc
construed as an admission of the Insurance policy. Merely because the
Appellant Insurance Company has complied with the order under
Section 140 of the M. V. Act., the Tribunal has construed it to mean that
the Insurance Company has admitted the Insurance policy bearing no.
25050223572324496 issued against the offending Motor Tempo
bearing no.MH-04-EY-4840, which according to the Insurance Company
is fake. Mr.Kasar, learned Counsel, draws the attention of this Court to
a decision dated 30th August 2022 in First Appeal No.970 of 2022 with
Interim Application No.17753 of 2022 where this Court (Coram : Gauri
Godse, J.) after considering the provisions of Section 140 of the M. V.
Act in detail, has clearly observed that the findings/observations
recorded by the Tribunal in the summary proceedings under Section
140 of the M. V. Act will not preclude the opposing party from raising
same defences in the proceedings under Section 166 of the M. V. Act
which is composite in nature. For the sake of convenience, paragraph
11 of the said decision is usefully quoted as under :
"Thus, in my view, no such observation as requested by the
learned Advocate for the Appellant, is necessary for more
than one reason. Firstly, the proceedings under section 140 of
the MV Act are summary in nature. Secondly the findings
and/or observations recorded by the Tribunal under such
proceedings are not conclusive and the same are only for the
purpose of grant of immediate relief. Thirdly as section 140
of MV Act itself is worded with a heading which says that
"Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the
avk 2/3
21-FA-133-2023.doc
principle of no fault", which means that the application
under section 140 of the MV Act is not a composite
application and thus grounds raised in defenses are also not
composite and are in fact preliminary in nature. Thus, the
defenses raised in the proceedings under section 140 of the
MV Act are dealt with only for the purpose of preliminary
and/or prima facie consideration for grant of immediate
relief. Thus, the findings/observations recorded by the
Tribunal in the summary proceedings under section 140 of
the MV Act, will not preclude the opposing party from raising
same defenses in the proceedings under section 166 of the
MV Act which is composite in nature."
2. However, Mr.Mendon, learned Counsel for the Respondent-
claimants would submit that the said decision of our Court does not
consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Another vs. Vatschala Uttam More (Smt.)1.
3. Let Mr.Mendon furnish a copy of the said judgment to Mr.Kasar.
4. List this matter for further consideration on 7th September 2023.
5. Registry is directed to send a reminder for expeditious receipt of
Record and Proceedings.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
1 1991 ACJ 777 (SC) : (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 530
avk 3/3
