[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Divisional Manager, Shriram General ... vs Bhika Narayan Madan (Orig. Claimant) ... on 22 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:3436 13_FA_87_2024.DOC
Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 18307 OF 2023
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2024
Divisional Manager, Shriram General Insurance ...Appellant/
Co. Ltd., Nashik Applicant
Versus
Bhika Narayan Madan (Orig. Claimant) and Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Aniesh S Jadhav a/w Shyam K. Singh, for the Appellant /
Applicant.
Mr. Rajan S. Pawar a/w T.J. Mendon, for the Respondents.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 22nd JANUARY, 2026.
PC:-
1. By consent of both the sides, heard finally at the stage of
admission.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Vehicles Act takes
exception to the judgment and award dated 08.03.2023 passed in
M.A.C.P. No.1222 of 2017, whereby Tribunal has granted
compensation of Rs.3,80,011/- including the NFL amount towards
compensation along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing
of the claim-petition till its realization. The Appellant takes
exception to the judgment and award on the ground that there was
nd
22 January, 2026.
13_FA_87_2024.DOC
no valid insurance policy during the relevant period and hence the
Insurer is not liable for payment of compensation. Exception to the
said judgment and award is also taken on the ground that the
Tribunal has committed error in accepting the disability of the
Insured without considering evidence on record.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurer submits that the
Insurer has taken specific defence that the cover note which was
sought to be relied upon by the claimants was a fake cover note.
Alternatively, it is submitted that even otherwise the Insured i.e.
the owner of the offending vehicle has submitted written
requisition for cancellation of the policy which is at Exhibit-44. It is
his submission that by reading evidence of two witnesses this
contention has been proved before the Tribunal, however, the
Tribunal in ignorance of the said evidence, directed payment of
compensation by the Insurer herein to the claimants. On the point
of disability it is submitted that the evidence of Dr. Kishor Dange
PW-3 shows that he has not taken X-ray of the patient nor has
produced any record in respect of any assessment done by him in
respect of the disability. It is his contention that on such evidence,
the Tribunal is not justified in granting the compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-original claimants
supported the impugned judgment and award.
5. There is no dispute made by the parties with regard to the
fact that on 10th June, 2017 the accident occurred involving a car
bearing No. MH-05-AJ-5319 in which claimant sustained injuries.
nd
22 January, 2026.
13_FA_87_2024.DOC
6. The owner of the offending vehicle failed to cause
appearance before the Tribunal and claim proceeded ex-parte
against him. The Insurer, however, filed written statement denying
contentions of claimant. It is specifically averred therein that the
offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurer. It is also
claimed that the cover note / policy is fake and not issued by the
Insurer nor any premium was paid against the same. Alternatively,
it is contended that the request was made by the owner of the
offending vehicle for cancellation of the said policy, and in view of
the same there is no liability of the Insurer to pay any
compensation.
7. Though such plea was raised in the written statement, as
observed by the learned Tribunal that the witnesses examined by
the Insurer in the cross-examination has accepted the fact that the
insurance policy was issued on 18.06.2016 for a period of
18.06.2016 to 17.06.2017 and premium of Rs.19,126/- was also
accepted. In view of the said evidence it is clear that the defence of
the Insurer about the fake policy / cover note is not sustainable. As
far as the contention of the Insurer with regard to the cancellation
of policy is concerned, once it is admitted that the policy existed on
payment of premium unless it was specifically cancelled by the
Insurer, the liability arising out of the said policy could not have
been denied by them. In such circumstances, the findings recorded
by the Tribunal in respect of entitlement deserves no interference.
8. Needles to say that the claimant is required to prove his
contention including the causing injuries resulting into the
disability on preponderance of probability.
nd
22 January, 2026.
13_FA_87_2024.DOC
9. Apart from deposing accordingly on oath, he led evidence of
Dr. Kishor Dange PW-3 who is the medical officer attached to
Malegaon Civil Hospital. He assessed the disability of the claimant
to the extent of 25%. The expertise of the witness who assessed the
disability is not under challenge. Owing to the nature of the
injuries caused to the claimant, the disability assessed by the
expert does not deserve any interference. Having regard to the
facts of the case, total amount of compensation of Rs.3,80,011/-
granted by the Tribunal cannot be termed as excessive to cause any
interference therein.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal.
11. Hence, appeal stands dismissed.
12. In view of disposal of the appeal, interim application does
not survive hence disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
nd
22 January, 2026.
