ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusYUNUS MAHAMMAD YUSUF MAKRANI

     C/FA/1712/2022                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1712 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                    Yes          No

==========================================================
                  ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                                 Versus
                 YUNUS MAHAMMAD YUSUF MAKRANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR.KARNA H DHOMSE(6684) for the Defendant(s) No. 10,11,6,7,8,9
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1,5
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                  Date : 18/02/2026
                                  ORAL JUDGMENT


1.      This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 06.09.2021
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara,
in MACP No.913 of 2009.



2.      Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.



3.      The brief facts of the case are that on 18.09.2016, at about
5:30 a.m., within the jurisdiction of Alirajpur Police Station, an
accident occurred involving Tractor-Trolley Nos. MP-45 AA-1163
and MP-45 AA-1167 owned by Opponent No.4. At the relevant
time,     the         deceased,    Mohammad         Zafar   Mohammadyusuf
Makrani, was working as a driver. Due to the rash and negligent



                                      Page 1 of 5
     C/FA/1712/2022                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




driving of Opponent No.3, the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and died on the spot.


4.     The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the registration
numbers of the tractor bearing No. MP-45-AA-1166 and the
trolley bearing No. MP-45-AA-1167 were not mentioned in the
FIR as well as in the panchnama. It is further submitted that the
learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the tractor and
the trolley are two different types of vehicles, and therefore, it is
improbable            that   both   vehicles       would    bear     consecutive
registration numbers in the same series. The learned advocate
has also contended that the learned Tribunal materially erred in
placing reliance upon the contents of the charge-sheet, despite
the fact that, as per the judgment of the learned JMFC, Alirajpur
(Exh. 72), the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of
the said tractor-trolley in the alleged accident. The witnesses
were unable to identify the vehicle, and it was found that the so-
called witnesses were not even present at the place of the alleged
accident. Consequently, the learned criminal Court acquitted the
driver of the tractor-trolley in question. Therefore, the present
appeal deserves to be allowed.



5.     On the contrary, learned advocate appearing for the
respondents have strongly opposed the appeal and 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



                                     Page 2 of 5
     C/FA/1712/2022                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




are based on proper appreciation of evidence, and hence, no
interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the
appeal be dismissed.



6.     On perusal of the record, it appears that the appeal has
been preferred mainly on the ground of involvement of the
vehicle. It is the contention of the appellant that in the criminal
case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur,
the evidence led by the parties indicates that the vehicle in
question was not involved in the accident and that it has been
falsely implicated only with a view to claim compensation.



7.     It appears that the learned Tribunal, however, has duly
considered the evidence on record and, relying upon the decision
in    Pankaj          Chandubhai      Patel      v.    Bharat         Transport
Corporation, 1998 (2) TAC 883, came to the conclusion that
the tractor bearing No. MP-45-AA-1166 and trolley bearing No.
MP-45-AA-1167 were insured with The Oriental Insurance
Company and that the name of the owner as well as the
description of the said vehicles were duly mentioned in the
insurance policy. Once the said vehicle was admittedly insured
with the appellant Insurance Company and the coverage of the
policy at the relevant time is not in dispute, the defence raised
by the Insurance Company regarding registration particulars
and alleged false implication of the vehicle cannot be accepted.


8.     So far as the contention regarding involvement of the
vehicle is concerned, it has come on record that during the


                                   Page 3 of 5
      C/FA/1712/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




course of investigation, the registration numbers of the tractor
and trolley were disclosed. Further, as per the evidence produced
at Exhibit 70, the statement of witness Surpal Bhurlabhilal
specifically discloses the registration number of the vehicle.
Considering the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal has
rightly held that the tractor-trolley in question was involved in
the accident. Moreover, the trolley was attached to the tractor,
and therefore, both form part of the same vehicle combination.
In this regard, reference may be made to Royal Sundaram v.
Smt. Honnamma, AIR 2025 SC 2641.



9.      It is also well settled that the findings recorded by the
criminal court are not binding upon the Tribunal. The evidence
led before the criminal court cannot be treated as conclusive for
deciding a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. In this
regard, reference may be made to Chamundeshwari Devi,
(2021) 18 SCC 516 and Jana Bai, Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade
& Ors. v. ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Ltd., (2022) 10
SCC 512, wherein the Court has 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
        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 settled legal position and the evidence



                                 Page 4 of 5
         C/FA/1712/2022                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026




   available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned
   Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the
   tractor-trolley in question was involved in the accident and in
   fastening the liability upon the present appellant – Insurance
   Company.



   11.      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



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 12:31:06




                                                 Page 5 of 5