Bombay High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Jitendra Arvind Sinroja And Ors. on 11 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:48651
Shubhada S Kadam 54-fa-556-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 556 of 2022
National Insurance Company Ltd. ... Appellant/s
Mumbai Regional Office I, (Original Opp.
5th Floor, Sterling Cinema Bldg., No.2)
65, Murzban Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 020.
versus
1 Jitendra Arvind Sinroja. .... Respondent
Age : 40, Occ: Service. Nos.1 to 2 are
the Original
Claimants.
2 Monika Jitendra Sinroja,
Age : 35 years, Occ:- Housewife.
Both Residing at : Bindu Bunglow,
Village :- Saravali, Manfodpada,
Near Kainad Phata, Tal: Dahanu,
Dist. Thane.
3 Mr. Salim Munaf Shaikh,
Age:- Adult, Occ : Tempo Owner, Respondent
R/o.:2, Dhanashri Residency, No.3-Ori. Opp.
Maatoshri Nagar, Upnagar, No.1.
Nashik-422 001.
(Owner of Tempo No.MH-15-DK-2604)
Mr. Amol Gatne, Advocate for the Appellant.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2025.
Oral Judgment :
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
KADAM
is filed by the appellant/insurer against judgment and award dated 25th
Shubhada S Kadam 54-fa-556-2022.doc
June 2015 passed in M.A.C.No.111 of 2013 whereby respondent Nos.1
and2/claimants are granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two lakhs) with interest at the rate of 7% p.a..
2. The claimants filed proceedings bearing M.A.C.No.111 of 2013
for seeking compensation in case of motor vehicular accident death of
deceased - Yash. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased died in
accident occurred on 6th July 2013 involving motor vehicle bearing
No. MH-15-DK-2604 which is owned by respondent No.3 and insured by
the appellant.
3. The insurer filed written statement and apart from denying
contentions of the claimants, a specific plea was raised with regard to the
breach of condition of policy on the ground that driver of the offending
vehicle having no valid driving license during the relevant period. There is,
however, no dispute made about the coverage of vehicle under insurance
policy issued by Insurer. The claim petition proceeded ex-parte against
owner of vehicle.
4. On behalf of the claimants, 1 witness viz.respondent No.1-
father of the deceased, was examined at Exhibit-13. No evidence was led
by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal partly
allowed the petition directing payment of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs) with interest.
5. This appeal has been filed by the insurer essentially on the
ground that at the relevant time there was no evidence available indicating
Shubhada S Kadam 54-fa-556-2022.doc
the driver of the offending vehicle not having valid driving license. It is
contended in memo of appeal that RTO informed by letter dated
3rd November 2015 that license in question came to be renewed on
20th August 2016 and, hence, it will have to be held that driver was not
holding valid license at relevant point of time. Learned counsel for the
appellant/insurer submits that subsequent to the passing of the judgment
and award by the Tribunal, the appellant could lay hand on the evidence
which according to him indicates that there is a breach of condition of the
policy and consequently the liability of insurer to pay the compensation
could be discharged. He, therefore, seeks remand of claim to Tribunal for
consideration afresh.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant/insurer
being party respondent to the original proceedings before the Tribunal
was given an opportunity of hearing and to lead evidence to substantiate
its case. The petition came to be filed in 2013 and decided on 25 th June
2015 and thus it cannot be said that the proceeding was decided in haste.
7. This is not the case wherein the insurer was prevented from
leading evidence before the Tribunal. Merely because the insurer gets
evidence post passing of the impugned judgment and award, it does not
become a ground for setting aside the award and to relegate the claim
petition back to the Tribunal for decision of fresh.
8. In order to succeed in seeking leading of additional evidence in
appeal or the remand of the proceedings, the appellant must show due
Shubhada S Kadam 54-fa-556-2022.doc
diligence or cause which has prevented the appellant from leading the
evidence during the trial. Except for the bare statement that the appellant
received information from R.T.O. after the decision of the original
proceedings, it cannot become a ground for setting aside the impugned
award.
9. Moreover, when the Tribunal has granted minimal
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, this court does not find it appropriate to
relegate death claim petition back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. Any
such order will cause grave prejudice to the claimants and since they
cannot be said to be at fault for non-leading of the evidence by the
appellant/insurer at the relevant time, they cannot be compelled to
undergo rigors of the trial again.
10. Having regard to the above facts, there is no merit in the
appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
11. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.2762 of
2016 will not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
