[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Radhabai Alias Kusum Kashinath ... on 5 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:147 32-fa-449-2023-OJ.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2023
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Having Office at Chintamani Avenue,
4th Floor, Opp. Western Express Highway,
Next to Virwani Industrial Estate,
Near Oberoi Tower, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai 400 063. ...Appellant
~ versus ~
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
1. Nivrutti Keru Pansarre,
Digitally signed
by SHEPHALI
Age 65 years,
SANJAY
MORMARE Residing at Mukkam Post Nandgao, ...Respondent
Date: 2026.01.06
12:52:42 +0530 Opp. Manmadh, District - Nashik (Org. Applicant)
2. Raghav Solanki,
Residing at Sagar Compound,
Building No. 1/B/305, Jasel Park,
Bhayander (East), District - Thane,
(Motorcycle No. MH-04-DF-5672) ...Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2023
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Having Office at Chintamani Avenue,
4th Floor, Opp. Western Express Highway,
Next to Virwani Industrial Estate,
Near Oberoi Tower, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai 400 063. ...Appellant
~ versus ~
1. Radhabai alias Kusum Kashinath Gite, ...Respondent
Page 1 of 6
5th January 2026
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:32:02 :::
32-fa-449-2023-OJ.doc
Age 75 years,
Residing at Mukkam Post Ambegaon,
Taluka Yeola, District - Nashik (Org. Applicant)
2. Raghav Solanki,
Residing at Sagar Compound,
Building No. 1/B/305, Jasel Park,
Bhayander (East), District - Thane,
(Motorcycle No. MH-04-DF-5672) ...Respondent
A PPEARANCES
For the Appellant Mrs Shalini Shankar.
For The Respondents Mr TJ Mendon.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 5TH JANUARY 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. These Appeals involve same question of facts and law and
hence, decided together by consent of both the parties.
2. The Appellant/Insurer has taken objection to the Judgment
and Award dated 26th July 2022 passed in MACP No. 1 of 2016
mainly on the ground that the policy relied upon by the Claimants
is a fake policy.
3. Learned Counsel for the Insurer submits that the Insurer has
raised specific plea in the Written Statement with regard to the
5th January 2026
32-fa-449-2023-OJ.doc
fake policy being placed on record before the Tribunal. It is her
contention that in order to support to the said claim, the Insurer
had examined DW-1 Sachin Chalke, i.e., the Manager of the
Appellant/Insurer. It is her further submission that the Insurer
apart from leading oral evidence, has placed reliance on the
complaint made to the police, so also, obtained information with
regard to the issuance of policy under the same number issued by
another Insurance Company in an Application filed under Right to
Information Act. It is her submission that the Insurer thus has
succeeded in proving its contention and for this reason itself, the
impugned Judgment and Award cannot sustain against the Insurer.
4. This contention is opposed by the learned counsel for the
Claimant by drawing attention of the Court to the findings
recorded by the Tribunal in paragraphs 10 to 15 of the impugned
Judgment. It is his contention that the Insurer has failed to place
on record the Insurance Policy issued under the same number to
another vehicle and also did not place before the Tribunal the
premium register. It is his submission that only on the basis of
these two documents, the Insurer could have been successful in
proving its contention.
5th January 2026
32-fa-449-2023-OJ.doc
5. The Insurer has taken a specific defence in the Written
statement of fake Insurance Policy. To support the said submission,
evidence of Sachin Chalke and Gangaram Nange was led. Through
these two witnesses, what is proved before the Tribunal that a
complaint was made to the police with regard to the fake policy, so
also, information was sought with regard to the issuance of the
Insurance Policy under the same number by different Insurer. The
witness of the Insurer had admitted that the policy number as
mentioned in policy at Exhibit-27 was not assigned to any other
vehicle. There is further admitted fact that the Insurer has failed to
place on record the premium register which would have been a
conclusive evidence to indicate that no premium was received by
the Insurer in respect of the Policy placed reliance on by the
Claimant.
6. Mere taking up the plea of fake policy is not sufficient nor
the same can be substantiated only on the basis of police
complaint. It was open for the Insurer to show that the policy
under the same number has been issued in respect of another
vehicle, so also, the record maintained by the Insurer in the form
of the premium register also could have conclusively established
5th January 2026
32-fa-449-2023-OJ.doc
the fact that the policy in question was not issued by the Insurer.
Nothing has prevented the Insurer from placing the said evidence
before the Tribunal. Non-production of such evidence which was
available with the Insurer leads to drawing of adverse inference
against the Insurer.
7. Perusal of the Judgment and Award indicates that the
Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the entire evidence on
record and, more particularly, the evidence led by the Insurer and
discussed the same in paragraphs 10 to 15 of the said Judgment. In
the facts of the case, this Court finds no perversity in the findings
recorded by the Tribunal in order to cause interference therein.
Consequently, there is no merit in these Appeals.
8. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(a) Both the Appeals are dismissed.
(b) The Claimants in each Appeal are permitted to
withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued
interest thereon.
5th January 2026
32-fa-449-2023-OJ.doc
(c) The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal
along with accrued interest thereon. The parties in
each Appeal are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.
(d) R & P be sent back to the Tribunal.
9. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, pending Applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
5th January 2026
