Bombay High Court
Suresh Narayan Chavan vs The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... on 16 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:29553
(1) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
922 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1319 OF 2016
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR LEGAL EXECUTIVE
VERSUS
PRATAP NARAYAN CHAVAN AND ANR
...
Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1320 OF 2016
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR LEGAL EXECUTIVE
VERSUS
SURESH NARAYAN CHAVAN AND ANR
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4109 OF 2016
IN FA/1320/2016
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR LEGAL EXECUTIVE
VERSUS
SURESH NARAYAN CHAVAN AND ANR
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4110 OF 2016
IN FA/1319/2016
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR LEGAL EXECUTIVE
VERSUS
PRATAP NARAYAN CHAVAN AND ANR
WITH
CROSS APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2018
IN FA/1320/2016
SURESH NARAYAN CHAVAN
VERSUS
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR LEGAL
EXECUTIVE AND ANR
...
(2) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12357 OF 2018
IN X-APL/2/2018
SURESH NARAYAN CHAVAN
VERSUS
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR LEGAL
EXECUTIVE AND ANR
WITH
CROSS APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2018
IN FA/1319/2016
PRATAP NARAYAN CHAVAN
VERSUS
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR LEGAL
EXECUTIVE AND ANR
...
Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Appellant
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12354 OF 2018
IN X-APL/3/2018
PRATAP NARAYAN CHAVAN
VERSUS
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR LEGAL
EXECUTIVE AND ANR
...
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : 16.10.2025
PER COURT :-
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1319 OF 2016
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, in Motor Accident Claim
(3) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
Petition No.461/2009, the original respondent no.2/Insurance Company has
preferred the First Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Brief facts of the case :-
(i) It was contended that on 08.08.2009 the respondent no.1 was riding on
a motorcycle bearing No.MH-19-AT-4645 from Jalgaon towards Pathrad. It
was further contended that a truck bearing No.MH-29-M-301 gave dash to the
bike on which respondent no.1 was riding and it resulted into permanent
disability to respondent no.1.
(ii) The claimant/respondent no.1 filed a petition before the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.5 Lakh to be recoverable jointly and severally
from the owner and insurer (the appellant herein).
(iii) It was a defence of the appellant/Insurance Company that the truck
driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of the
accident. On this count, besides other defences, the appellant/Insurance
Company sought exoneration from the liability to indemnify the insured
owner.
(iv) During the course of hearing, the Insurance Company examined its
official who tendered certain information received from the concerned RTO
wherein it was revealed that the copy of the license was placed on record by
the claimant pertaining to driving license of driver was fake. The
(4) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
appellant/Insurance Company made every endeavor to bring on record that
the said driving license suggested and revealed by the claimant did not stand
in the name of the driver of the insured vehicle.
(v) The appellant/Insurance Company deposed before the learned Tribunal
through its witness that as per the record of the RTO, Chandrapur, the
numbered license that was shown to have been issued in the name of the truck
driver was in fact issued in the name of one Dipak S. Varutkar and as such it
was proved that the license that was placed on record pertaining to the truck
driver was absolutely fake one. With this, the appellant/Insurance Company
sought exoneration from the liability to indemnify the insured owner and
prayed to dismiss the claim to the extent of the appellant/Insurance Company.
Findings of the Tribunal :-
2. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal quantified the
award to the tune of Rs.1,85,000/- to be recoverable jointly and severally from
the owner and insurer.
3. So far as the legal defence raised by the Insurance Company was
concerned, the learned Tribunal discarded such defence holding that in any
event the Insurance Company was not absolved from the liability to indemnify
the insured owner. As such the Insurance Company is in this Court against the
findings rendered by the learned Tribunal so far as the license of the truck
(5) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
driver is concerned.
Submissions in the Appeal :-
4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company fairly placed on record copy of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rishi Pal Singh vs. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. And others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 2119.
5. A profitable reference can be made to Paragraph No.11 of the said
judgment which reads as follow :
"11. The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving
skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the
genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver.
Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is
competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner
thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued
to the driver."
Conclusion :-
6. In view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it has become trite law that even if the driver of the insured
vehicle might be holding a fake license, the vehicle owner is not expected to
verify the genuineness of the driving license before engaging such driver.
Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company is not absolved from its
(6) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
liability to indemnify the insured owner.
7. In view of this I do not find any reason to interfere into the
findings rendered by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merit and
deserves to be dismissed. Hence I pass the following order :-
ORDER
A. The First Appeal No.1319 of 2016 is dismissed without any
order as to costs.
B. In view of the dismissal of the First Appeal, the legal
representatives of the deceased/claimant are entitled to
withdraw the amount deposited by the Insurance Company in
this Court with accrued interest thereon.
C. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1320 OF 2016
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.460/2009, the original respondent no.2/Insurance Company has
preferred the First Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Brief facts of the case :-
(i) It was contended that on 08.08.2009 the claimant/insured was riding
on a motorcycle bearing No.MH-19-AT-4645 as a pillion rider from Jalgaon
towards Pathrad. It was further contended that a truck bearing
No.MH-29-M-301 gave dash to the bike on which the claimant/insured was
(7) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
riding as a pillion rider and it resulted into permanent disability.
(ii) The claimant/respondent no.1 filed a petition before the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.5 Lakh to be recoverable jointly and severally
from the owner and insurer (the appellant herein).
(iii) It was a defence of the appellant/Insurance Company that the truck
driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of the
accident. On this count, besides other defences, the appellant/Insurance
Company sought exoneration from the liability to indemnify the insured
owner.
(iv) During the course of hearing, the Insurance Company examined its
official who tendered certain information received from the concerned RTO
wherein it was revealed that the copy of the license was placed on record by
the claimant pertaining to driving license of driver was fake. The
appellant/Insurance Company made every endeavor to bring on record that
the said driving license suggested and revealed by the claimant did not stand
in the name of the driver of the insured vehicle.
(v) The appellant/Insurance Company deposed before the learned Tribunal
through its witness that as per the record of the RTO, Chandrapur, the
numbered license that was shown to have been issued in the name of the truck
driver was in fact issued in the name of one Dipak S. Varutkar and as such it
(8) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
was proved that the license that was placed on record pertaining to the truck
driver was absolutely fake one. With this, the appellant/Insurance Company
sought exoneration from the liability to indemnify the insured owner and
prayed to dismiss the claim to the extent of the appellant/Insurance Company.
Findings of the Tribunal :-
2. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal quantified the
award to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- to be recoverable jointly and severally from
the owner and insurer.
3. So far as the legal defence raised by the Insurance Company was
concerned, the learned Tribunal discarded such defence holding that in any
event the Insurance Company was not absolved from the liability to indemnify
the insured owner. As such the Insurance Company is in this Court against the
findings rendered by the learned Tribunal so far as the license of the truck
driver is concerned.
Submissions in the Appeal :-
4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company fairly placed on record copy of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rishi Pal Singh vs. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. And others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 2119.
5. A profitable reference can be made to Paragraph No.11 of the said
(9) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
judgment which reads as follow :
"11. The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving
skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the
genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver.
Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is
competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner
thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued
to the driver."
Conclusion :-
6. In view of the settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it has become trite law that even if the driver of the insured
vehicle might be holding a fake license, the vehicle owner is not expected to
verify the genuineness of the driving license before engaging such driver.
Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company is not absolved from its
liability to indemnify the insured owner.
7. In view of this I do not find any reason to interfere into the
findings rendered by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merit and
deserves to be dismissed. Hence I pass the following order :-
ORDER
A. The First Appeal No.1320 of 2016 is dismissed without any
order as to costs.
B. In view of the dismissal of the First Appeal, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the Insurance
( 10 ) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
Company in this Court with accrued interest thereon.
C. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
CROSS APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2018 IN FA/1319/2016
1. Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is extremely
inadequate. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted any
compensation on the basis of the loss of earning capacity and the disability
sustained by the appellant/claimant in the Cross Appeal. He would submit
that an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- is too meagre for the case that was set up by
the claimant in the Trial Court.
2. Per contra, Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for
the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has rightly awarded
compensation in accordance with the law prevailing at the relevant time. He
would further submit that the claimant failed to prove the extent of
permanent disability and its impact on earning capacity. Therefore, no case for
enhancement is made out and the Cross Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
3. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for both parties, I
have perused the Record and Proceeding. Since the appellant in the Cross
Appeal seeks enhancement of compensation, a detailed scrutiny of the
Tribunal's observations is warranted.
( 11 ) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
4. It could be beneficial to refer to the observation of the learned
Tribunal at Paragraph Nos.17 to 20 and 33 which are reproduced as follows :
"17. It is a settled principle of law, ruled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, while dealing with the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. Yudhvir
Singh and another [2008 ACJ 2131] that, without examining
Medical Officer, who issued medical certificate, it is inadmissible
in evidence. Apart from this, the PDCerificate must be issued in
the prescribed format - Compo B, as per the provisions of Motor
Vehicles Rules.
18. No doubt, in order to prove the contentions raised by the
claimant, he has examined CW-2, Dr.Anil Jagannath Khadke, an
Orthopedic Surgeon, practicing at Jalgaon, at Exh.39. He
produced and proved PDCertificate issued by him under seal of
his hospital and signature, at Exh.43, show that, claimant had
sustained injury to the right knee joint, to the extent of 45% of
the part.
19. In his cross-examination by the Advocate for respondent
No.2, he admitted that, the injured claimant admitted in his
hospital as indoor patient for the period of 1 month, however, the
requisite papers are not produced. He is unable to say, due to
injuries sustained towards right knee joint to the claimant, how
much physical disability would be there. According to him, there
may be some disability due to the injuries sustained.
20. Admittedly, the PDC produced in the prescribed format
Comp B is not verified by the Medical Board attached to the Civil
Hospital, at Jalgaon. No doubt, injury certificate previously
( 12 ) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
issued by CW-2, at Exh.27 show that claimant sustained grievous
injuries. So, I have no hesitation to answer issue No.2, partly in
the affirmative.
33. Be that as it may, CW-2 under cross-examination,
aforementioned admitted that, he cannot estimate the actual
disability sustained to the claimant as well as unable to say
whether inserted rod and screw removed by the claimant in
another hospital or through another dispensary, raising operation
or not."
5. In light of the above, it is evident that the claimant failed to
establish through cogent and reliable evidence, the extent of disability and the
loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal has rightly observed that in the absence
of any verified disability certificate or medical evidence, no further
enhancement could be justified. In the light of that, I find that the learned
Tribunal has not committed any error in quantifying the award amount of
Rs.1,85,000/-.
6. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
A. The Cross Appeal No.3 of 2018 stands dismissed.
B. No order as to costs.
CROSS APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2018 IN FA/1320/2016
1. This Cross Appeal is filed by the original claimant seeking
( 13 ) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal. Mr. Bhokarikar, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the compensation awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal,
amounting to Rs.1,75,000/-, is meagre and inadequate and thus cannot be
considered just and proper.
2. Mr. Bhokarikar, learned counsel would submit that the learned
Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal parameters while assessing
compensation in an injury claim. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in not
granting appropriate compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity,
which was allegedly sustained by the claimant due to the injuries suffered in
the accident.
3. Per contra, Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for
the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has rightly awarded
compensation in accordance with the law prevailing at the relevant time. He
would further submit that the claimant failed to prove the extent of
permanent disability and its impact on earning capacity. Therefore, no case for
enhancement is made out and the Cross Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
4. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for both parties, I
have perused the Record and Proceeding. Since the appellant in the Cross
Appeal seeks enhancement of compensation, a detailed scrutiny of the
( 14 ) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
Tribunal's observations is warranted.
5. It could be beneficial to refer to the observation of the learned
Tribunal at Paragraph Nos.14 to 18 and 33 which are reproduced as follows :
"14. It is a settled principle of law, ruled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, while dealing with the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. Yudhvir
Singh and another [2008 ACJ 2131] that, without examining
Medical Officer, who issued medical certificate, it is inadmissible
in evidence. Apart from this, the PDCerificate must be issued in
the prescribed format - Compo B, as per the provisions of Motor
Vehicles Rules.
15. No doubt, in order to prove the contentions raised by the
claimant, he has examined CW-2, Dr.Anil Jagannath Khadke, an
Orthopedic Surgeon, practicing at Jalgaon, at Exh.41. He
produced and proved PDCertificate issued by him under seal of
his hospital and signature, at Exh.45, show that, claimant had
sustained injury to the right knee joint, to the extent of 5% of the
part.
16. In his cross-examination by the Advocate for respondent
No.2, he admitted that, the said disability likely to be cured after
lapse of time. In fact, pleadings of the claimant show that, he was
permanently disabled under accident (See para No.14(a) (c)),
howerver there is variance with the pleadings and evidence, for
the reason best known to the claimant only.
17. It is ruled by the Apex Court, in the case of
G.Dhanashekhar vs. M. D. Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Ltd. (2014(2) ABR 686) that, principle governing fixation of
( 15 ) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
compensation for functional disability, it has to be borne in the
mind that, it cannot be uniformally applied, it would depend on
the impact cause by the injury on the victim's profession/career.
To what extent, the career of the victim affected, thereby his
regular income is reduced or dried up will depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. There may be even situations
where the physical disability does not involve any functional
disability at all.
18. Be that as it may, CW-2 under cross-examination clearly
admitted that, the injury sustained is likely to be cured after
lapse of time. Apart from this, there is no cogent evidence led
that, claimant, due to the accident, sustained injury, he become
permanently disable, however injury certificate collected by the
police issued by CW-2, dated 31-08-2009, show that, under road
traffic accident, claimant sustained grievous and simple injuries,
as described, thereby having considered the evidence led, I have
no hesitation to answer issue No.2, as partly in the affirmative
findings.
33. In his cross-examination by the Advocate for respondent
No.2, he admitted that, he is unable to say that, rod and screw
inserted by the claimant under operation to the right leg,
whether removed in another dispensary or not, while giving
estimate bill, dated 05-02-2011, worth Rs.80,000/-, produced at
Exh.44.
6. It is abundantly clear that the claimant miserably failed to prove
the quantum of the permanent disability he allegedly sustained, as also failed
( 16 ) 922 FA 1319 OF 2016
to demonstrate how it has affected the loss of earning capacity. The learned
Tribunal as taken into consideration the expenses made by the claimant
towards his treatment and adding non-pecuniary damages, the final award of
Rs.1,75,000/- has been granted by the learned Tribunal. Had it been the case
that the claimant has had meticulously proved the permanent disability and
loss of earning capacity qua such permanent disability, the claimant would
certainly have been entitled to receive adequate compensation accordingly for
failure of the claimant to prove his case for seeking compensation under the
heading of loss of earning capacity, I do not find that the learned Tribunal has
committed any error while granting the compensation at Rs.1,75,000/-.
7. As such, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal
does not call for any interference so as to enhance the compensation granted
to the claimant.
8. Hence the following order :-
ORDER
A. The Cross Appeal stands dismissed.
B. No order as to costs.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW
