IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.versusSANGAR AMADBHAI MUSABHAI

     C/FA/1905/2022                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1905 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

            Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No
                                                                   ✔
==========================================================
                 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
                                 Versus
                    SANGAR AMADBHAI MUSABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 9
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 8
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 13/01/2026

                               ORAL JUDGMENT


1.     This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 11.02.2022
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh-
Bhuj in MACP No.333 of 2016.



2.     Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though
served, none appears for respondent No.9.



3.     The brief facts of the case are that on 11.04.2016, the
deceased,        Shri    Sangar    Bashir         Amadbhai,     was      riding     a
motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-10-K-4738 from Hajipir


                                    Page 1 of 6
     C/FA/1905/2022                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




to Mandvi, keeping to the extreme left side of the road at a
moderate speed. When he reached the place of the accident, a
Bolero bearing Registration No. GJ-12-CG-8312, being driven
rashly and negligently from the opposite direction, lost control
and collided with the deceased’s motorcycle. As a result, the
deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed thereto.



4.     The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
learned Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the
insurance company with liability, ignoring the fact that the
driver of the offending vehicle, namely the Bolero bearing
Registration No. GJ-12-CG-8312, was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The charge-
sheet produced at Exhibit 37 clearly states that the driver of the
said Bolero was driving the vehicle without a valid and effective
licence, thereby violating Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Hence, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal
are erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law.
Therefore, it was prayed that the insurance company be
exonerated. Alternatively, the learned advocate for the insurance
company submitted that at least an order of “pay and recover” be
passed against the owner of the vehicle, i.e., opponent No. 2.

5.     Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing for the
respondents, opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned
Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation on
the basis 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,     therefore,         no


                                     Page 2 of 6
     C/FA/1905/2022                          JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the
appeal be dismissed.

6.     Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the
learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in light of the
decisions in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and
Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635,
including the affidavit of the claimant at Exhibit 28, the
insurance policy at Exhibit 32, the FIR at Exhibit 33, the
panchnama at Exhibit 34, the charge-sheet at Exhibit 37, the
driving licence of the deceased produced at Mark 30/1, the
letters addressed by the insurance company to opponent No. 2
at Exhibits 42 and 43, and the statement of opponent No. 1
recorded by the police at Exhibit 44.

7.     So far as the involvement of the vehicle, its coverage, and
the quantum of compensation are concerned, the same are not
in dispute. The appeal has been filed only on the ground of
liability; therefore, the issue involved in the appeal is required to
be considered in a narrow compass.

8.     The learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on the
principle of preponderance of probabilities. The insurance
company has raised the defence that, on the date of the
accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a
valid and effective driving licence and has relied upon the
charge-sheet to contend that the driver of the Bolero was not
holding a valid and effective licence to drive the said vehicle.




                              Page 3 of 6
      C/FA/1905/2022                        JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




9.      It is further submitted that the insurance company
addressed a letter to the owner of the Bolero vehicle calling upon
him to provide particulars, including the driving licence of the
driver, but he failed to do so or to produce any such particulars.
Hence, the insurance company has relied upon the statement of
opponent No. 1 recorded by the police, produced at Exhibit 45,
wherein he has stated that he was not holding a licence on the
date of the accident.

10.     However, to prove the aforesaid fact, no cogent evidence
has been produced on record and no witness has been
examined. Mere issuance of a letter to the owner is not sufficient
to avoid the liability of the insurance company. It is well settled
that the party who asserts must prove. In the absence of any
reliable evidence, to avoid liability the insurance company was
required to prove that, on the date of the accident, the driver of
the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence. However, except for the charge-sheet, no evidence has
been produced; no RTO officer or any other witness has been
examined, nor any documentary evidence brought on record to
show that the driver of the Bolero did not possess a valid licence.

11.     It is needless to say that a charge-sheet by itself is not
proof that, on the date of the accident, opponent No.1 was not
holding a valid or effective driving licence. Whatever evidence is
produced before the Tribunal has to be duly proved and properly
appreciated. In this regard, reference may be made to the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jana Bai, Wd/o
Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard Insurance
Company Ltd., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512, wherein the

                              Page 4 of 6
      C/FA/1905/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




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.”

12.     The learned advocate for the appellant has also relied upon
the statement of opponent No. 1 recorded by the police. It is to
be noted that in his first statement recorded on 12.04.2016,
opponent No. 1 stated that he was holding a driving licence to
drive a motorcycle. Subsequently, in his second statement
recorded on 21.04.2016, he changed his version and stated that
he was driving the Bolero jeep and did not possess a driving
licence at that time. However, these statements have not been
proved by examining any witness. It is settled law that a
statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is not
substantive evidence and has no evidentiary value unless duly
proved in accordance with law. Mere production of such
statements is not sufficient; the contents thereof must be proved
by leading evidence before the Tribunal.

13.     On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, it
appears that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
and that the insurance company has failed to prove its defence.
Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The
application stands dismissed accordingly.




                                 Page 5 of 6
          C/FA/1905/2022                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026




    14.      So far as the prayer for passing an order of “pay and
    recover”        is     concerned,          in     the         absence     of    any      proof       of
    fundamental breach of the policy or violation of its conditions, no
    such order is required to be passed.



    15.      If any amount is lying deposited before this Court, the
    same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith.
    There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to
    return the Record and 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 15/01/2026 16:32:35




                                                    Page 6 of 6