Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Dhakuben Valabhai Algotar on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/961/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 961 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
DHAKUBEN VALABHAI ALGOTAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
EMIK K PARMAR(8953) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 11.08.2021
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar
in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.94 of 2016.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though
served, none appears for respondent No.7.
3. The brief facts of the present claim petitions are that on
21.02.2016, at around midnight, the deceased had gone to
Navabandar, Bhavnagar, to load coal for Nirma Company in
Truck No. GJ-3W-7760. After parking the truck in a queue, he
was standing near Mira Kanta beside the road. At that time,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/961/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
opponent No.1, the driver of Truck No. GJ-4X-7124, drove his
vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
into the deceased, causing him to fall, and the left wheels of the
truck ran over him. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and
died on the spot. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of opponent No.1. Therefore, the
applicants have filed the present claim petitions seeking
compensation with interest.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation
and fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company, as the
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence. It is submitted that the licence produced
on record was fake; however, the learned Tribunal ignored this
material evidence and failed to pass an order of pay and recover.
It is further submitted that the rate of interest awarded is not in
consonance with the prevailing bank rates and is on the higher
side. The learned advocate has also submitted that the Tribunal
failed to consider that the driver of the offending vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective licence, and the licence produced at
Exhibit 43 was fake. The extract of the driving licence was
produced at Exhibits 44 and 45, and the printout from the
Parivahan Sarthi website was produced at Exhibit 46. Therefore,
the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. On the contrary, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent claimant has strongly opposed the appeal and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/961/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just
and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on
record. It was contended that the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence, and
hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed
that the appeal be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having gone through the documents on record, it
appears that in the present case, the driver of the offending
vehicle bearing No. GJ-4-X-7124 was solely negligent. However,
after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal
held the owner and driver of the offending vehicle liable to pay
compensation and, since the insurance policy was in force on
the date of the accident, directed the present appellant-
Insurance Company to indemnify the owner and satisfy the
award.
7. The main grievance of the learned advocate for the
Insurance Company is that there was a fundamental breach of
policy conditions. Under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the insurer is required to establish its defence to
avoid liability. In the present case, the specific defence raised
was that the driver was holding a fake or invalid driving licence.
Such a defence, however, cannot be accepted either against the
claimant or against a third party unless it is duly proved. The
Insurance Company has failed to prove that the licence was fake.
Merely obtaining a report or a photocopy of the licence through a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/961/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
private investigator, without examining any officer of the
Insurance Company or producing reliable and cogent evidence,
is insufficient. The stand taken in the written arguments below
Exhibit 49 cannot be treated as proof. The burden to prove that
the licence was fake squarely lies on the Insurance Company.
8. Though the Insurance Company appointed an investigator
to verify the genuineness of the licence and obtained a certified
copy, the investigator's conclusion that the licence was fake, and
the documents produced at Exhibits 44 and 45, are not
adequate to discharge the burden of proof. The Insurance
Company was required to lead proper evidence to establish that
the licence was fake, which it failed to do despite having ample
opportunity. Pleadings or submissions cannot substitute proof.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in
fastening liability on the Insurance Company and rejecting its
defence.
9. Coming to the issue of passing an order of pay and recover,
in the absence of any fundamental breach on the date of the
incident and in the absence of proof that the driver did not hold
a valid and effective licence, the question of issuing such a
direction does not arise. Even otherwise, in cases involving an
allegation of a fake licence, the duty of the owner is limited to
making reasonable inquiry regarding the competence of the
driver. The mere fact that a licence is subsequently found to be
fake does not absolve the insurer. Reference may be made to
Reliance General Insurance Co. v. Somabhai Chaganbhai Parmar,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/961/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
2024 (2) GLR 1371. The owner is only expected to verify the
driving skills of the driver and is not required to investigate the
genuineness of the licence. In this regard, reference may also be
made to Rishipal Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2022
ACJ 1868, and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta
Devi.
10. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be
just and proper, which calls for no interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves
dismissal and is hereby dismissed. If any amount is lying
deposited before this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the
learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. The Registry is
directed to return the Record & Proceedings, if any, to the
learned Tribunal forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
