BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INS CO LTDversusSANJAY TULSIDAS BHATTER

     C/FA/1040/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1040 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR                     Sd/-
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                Yes          No
                                                  
==========================================================
                      BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INS CO LTD
                                    Versus
                      SANJAY TULSIDAS BHATTER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS POOJA M PANCHAL for MR DHARMESH V SHAH(1050) for the
Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4
RAHUL S SHAH(9701) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 18/02/2026
                              ORAL JUDGMENT


1.     This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and award dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Navsari in MACP No.171 of
2014.


2.     Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the
appellant,       Mr.   Dharmesh     V.    Shah,   learned     advocate         for
respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr. Rahul Shah, learned advocate
appearing for respondent No.1.


3.     Brief facts of the case are that on 14.01.2014 at about 4:30
p.m., the deceased minor, Mehulbhai Thakorbhai Patel, was
standing on the opposite side of a petrol pump at Patel Fadiya,
Village Tankal, when opponent No. 1, driving a motor car bearing


                                  Page 1 of 11
     C/FA/1040/2022                         JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




Registration No. GJ-05-CK-6509 in a rash and negligent manner
and at excessive speed, dashed against him. The deceased
sustained serious head and bodily injuries and was initially
treated at the Primary Health Centre, Tankal, thereafter at
Kharel and D.N. Mehta Hospital, Navsari, and subsequently at
Alipore and Surat Hospitals. Despite treatment, he succumbed
to the injuries on 26.02.2014.


4.     Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant,
has submitted that the vehicle in question was not involved in
the alleged accident at all. He submitted that the First
Information Report was registered after a delay of two days from
the date of the accident. It is submitted that the vehicle has
subsequently been planted and its registration number has been
introduced falsely. It is further submitted that there was no
eyewitness to the alleged accident who was aware of the
registration number of the vehicle. The information in the FIR
was given on the basis of one Dharmeshbhai, who has not been
examined. The first informant had no personal knowledge of the
incident. It is also contended that the driver of the alleged
offending vehicle has been acquitted by the learned Criminal
Court. Though documentary evidence was produced and the
owner of the alleged offending vehicle was examined at Exhibit
54, the learned Tribunal has, without assigning any reasons,
wrongly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. It is
further submitted that even the Investigating Officer has
admitted that no eyewitness was found during the course of
investigation, and that the complaint was lodged only on the
basis of the statement of the father of the deceased, who reached


                             Page 2 of 11
     C/FA/1040/2022                         JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




the spot upon receiving information from his brother, the first
informant. No vehicle was found at the spot which was allegedly
involved in the accident. Learned advocate for the appellant has
further submitted that on the date of the alleged accident,
opponent No. 1 was flying a kite on the occasion of the Makar
Sankranti festival and, therefore, was not involved in the alleged
incident. It is submitted that opponent No. 1 had also filed an
affidavit before the Insurance Company stating the said fact. It is
further submitted that opponent No. 1 has deposed before the
learned Tribunal, and an officer of the Insurance Company has
also stated about the non-involvement of the vehicle. Statements
of witnesses were recorded in support of the said contention;
however, the learned Tribunal has ignored the said evidence
while fastening the liability. Therefore, on the ground of non-
involvement of the vehicle and the belated filing of the complaint,
he has requested that the present appeal be allowed.

5.     Learned advocates for the respondents have opposed the
appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has properly
appreciated the evidence and, after taking note of the evidence
produced on record, has rightly held that there is clear evidence
suggesting the involvement of the offending vehicle. It is
submitted that a charge-sheet was filed against opponent No. 1,
and he has never challenged the said complaint or the charge-
sheet and had participated in the criminal proceedings. It is
further submitted that merely because he has been acquitted in
the criminal case, the same cannot be a ground to conclude that
the vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident. The learned
Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on the basis of the



                             Page 3 of 11
     C/FA/1040/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




principle of preponderance of probabilities, as the standard of
proof in a claim petition is different from that in a criminal case.
The claimants are only required to bring on record the
involvement of the vehicle and that the alleged accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving by the opponent. It is
therefore submitted that the learned Tribunal has properly
appreciated the evidence and rightly saddled the Insurance
Company with liability. The involvement of car No. GJ-05-CK-
6509 is proved on record. Hence, it is requested that the appeal
be dismissed.


6.     Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having gone through the documents produced on
record, it appears that the main issue raised by the appellant is
with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle bearing
No. GJ-05-CK-6509 in the accident. The Insurance Company
has pleaded non-involvement of the said vehicle in order to
exonerate itself from liability.


7.     It appears that before the Tribunal, the claimant led
evidence at Exhibit 23, which is required to be appreciated in
light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bimla
Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwar(i) Devi
v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635. The claimant has
categorically stated about the involvement of the motor car
driven by opponent No. 1. In the cross-examination, nothing has
come on record to suggest that there was no negligence on the
part of opponent No. 1.




                               Page 4 of 11
     C/FA/1040/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




8.     It is the case of the Insurance Company that opponent No.
1 was not involved in causing the accident; however, a charge-
sheet was filed against opponent No. 1 in respect of the said
vehicle, and he faced the trial. Merely because the Criminal
Court has acquitted the accused, the same cannot be a ground
to discard the case of the claimant. The judgment in Criminal
Case No. 436 of 2014, registered for the offences under Sections
279, 337, 338, and 304A of the IPC read with Sections 177, 184,
and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is produced on record. The
said charge-sheet was never challenged before any authority.
The involvement of the vehicle and negligence on the part of
opponent No. 1 were found during investigation.


9.     The Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Criminal Court. It is needless to say that the
evidence led before the Tribunal is required to be appreciated
independently in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Chamundeshwari, reported in 2021 ACJ 2558 and in Jana
Bai, Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512,
wherein it has been held as under:
       “We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal
       trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section
       166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature.
       There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of
       appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The
       application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of
       evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which



                                Page 5 of 11
      C/FA/1040/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




        should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We
        find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not
        sustainable.”


10.     In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, it
appears that the findings of the Criminal Court are not binding
on the learned Tribunal. Even for the sake of argument, if the
said judgment is perused, nothing reveals that the vehicle was
not involved in the accident or that the acquittal was recorded on
the ground of non-involvement of the vehicle. The acquittal
appears to have been recorded merely on the ground of non-
identification of the accused. Therefore, the acquittal recorded by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the judgment
rendered in the criminal case would not render any assistance to
the appellant.


11.     So far as the appreciation of the evidence of opponent No. 1
is concerned, he has tendered his evidence at Exhibit 53,
wherein he has stated that on 14 th January, 2014, he was flying
a kite and that his vehicle was not involved in the alleged
accident, and that he has been wrongly dragged into the
litigation. He has further stated that an officer of the Insurance
Company approached him and that he submitted an affidavit to
that effect. However, to prove the said fact, no witness has been
examined either before the learned Tribunal or before the
Criminal Court. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that
from January 2014 till 31st July 2018, he had never raised any
objection nor filed any petition or initiated any litigation before
any District Court or the High Court challenging the complaint



                                Page 6 of 11
      C/FA/1040/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




or the proceedings. He has further admitted that for the first
time before the Tribunal he stated that his vehicle was not
involved in the alleged accident and that a false case had been
lodged against him.


12.     Further, the Insurance Company has relied upon the
evidence of Ankur Ramubhai Mistry, examined at Exhibit 57. He
is a Legal Officer of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company. He has
deposed that the vehicle of opponent No. 1 was not involved in
the alleged accident and that on 14 th January, 2014, opponent
No. 1 was flying a kite. He has further stated that a notarized
affidavit to that effect was produced before him. In his cross-
examination,           he has admitted that     he has no personal
knowledge about the alleged accident and that he has deposed
before the Tribunal only on the basis of the record. He has
further admitted that no proceedings have been filed till date to
challenge the FIR.


13.     Considering the aforesaid facts, no sufficient or clinching
evidence has been produced before the learned Tribunal to
disprove the involvement of the vehicle. It is needless to say that
the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. Before
the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company failed to rebut the
presumption or to lay any cogent evidence to disprove the
involvement of the vehicle in the accident.


14.     It is true that the complaint was filed after two days of the
accident; however, there is no bar that merely because the
complaint is filed belatedly, the claim petition is required to be


                                 Page 7 of 11
      C/FA/1040/2022                          JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




rejected. Before the learned Tribunal, opponent Nos. 1 and 2
remained absent, and their right to file a reply was closed. The
evidence laid by opponent No. 1 regarding non-involvement of
the vehicle was disclosed for the first time before the Tribunal,
and the same has not been accepted by the Tribunal. In the
reply to the claim petition, the Insurance Company denied its
liability and raised a contention on behalf of opponent No. 1 that
he was doing business in Surat and that his car was being used
only within Surat city and nearby areas. However, the Insurance
Company failed to prove the said contention or to establish that
the vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident.


15.     It was further argued before the Tribunal that opponent
No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the
time of the accident and that there was a breach of the
conditions of the policy. Hence, according to the Insurance
Company, it was not liable to indemnify the loss caused to the
claimants. However, such a defence is contradictory to the
primary contention of non-involvement of the vehicle. Even
otherwise, no evidence has been led to substantiate the alleged
breach of policy conditions.


16.     So far as the driving licence is concerned, the same was
issued by the RTO, Surat, and is produced on record at Exhibit
34. On the date of the accident, the licence was valid. The
insurance policy, produced at Exhibit 35, was in force from 13th
October, 2013 to 12th October, 2014. It is an undisputed fact
that the accident occurred on 14th January, 2014. Therefore,
the insurance policy was valid and in force at the time of the


                               Page 8 of 11
      C/FA/1040/2022                          JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




accident, and the Insurance Company has failed to prove any
fundamental breach of the policy conditions.


17.     It is needless to state that the mere acquittal in a criminal
case is not a ground to dismiss a claim petition. In this regard,
reference may be made to the decision in Asha Devi v. HRTC,
reported in (2015) ACJ 883. The learned Tribunal has rightly
relied upon FIR and Charge-sheet papers filed against opponent
No.1, to determine negligence and involvement of vehicle. Hence,
argument qua police papers are prepared subsequently in
connivance of police is not accepted in light of the decision of
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajani
Sahoo, 2025 INSC 6.


18.     Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Nanavati has submitted that
the Tribunal ought not to have concluded about the involvement
of the vehicle in the absence of examination of the Investigating
Officer or the so-called eyewitness, Dharmeshbhai, who allegedly
had personal knowledge of the incident. However, once the
charge-sheet filed by the police was not challenged and, upon
filing of the same, opponent No. 1 participated in the criminal
trial, the question of examining the Investigating Officer before
the learned Tribunal does not arise.


19.     So far as evidence of witness Dharmeshbhai is concerned,
it appears that the complaint was lodged based on the
information given by him, but Dharmeshbhai expired on 18 th
June, 2015, and his death certificate has been produced at
Exhibit 78. Thus, approximately one and a half years after the


                               Page 9 of 11
      C/FA/1040/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




alleged accident, he passed away. The involvement of the vehicle
was disputed before the learned Tribunal for the first time by
opponent No. 3 (the present appellant) by filing a written
statement at Exhibit 51 in the year 2018. The evidence of the
claimant had already been tendered before the learned Tribunal
on 9th December, 2016, and the said witness was cross-
examined on 27th October, 2017. Therefore, the evidence of the
claimant was recorded prior to the filing of the written
statement. Admittedly prior to relevant dates of both stages,
Dharmeshbhai was no more. Hence, the question of to examine
Dharmeshbhai does not arise. Mere delay in filing the FIR is not,
by itself, a ground to dismiss the claim petition in view of the
decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velu & Anr., after
a holistic consideration of the facts and appreciation of the
evidence produced on record. There is no reason to believe that
the vehicle was not involved in the accident. Therefore, the
argument canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Nanavati is not
accepted. Hence, the appellant has failed to prove that vehicle
No. GJ-05-CK-6509 was not involved in the alleged accident.


20.     So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
factum of death has been duly proved. The deceased was a
minor aged eight years, and no cross-objection has been
preferred challenging the quantum. The appeal is mainly
restricted to the issue of involvement of the vehicle, and
therefore,        the   question   of   quantum    does     not     arise       for
consideration beyond the limited ground urged in the present
appeal.




                                   Page 10 of 11
      C/FA/1040/2022                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




21.     On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the
judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal appears to
be 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.
                                                                                Sd/-
                                                                  (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI




 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/02/2026 12:42:31




                                            Page 11 of 11